Himachal Pradesh High Court
Banarsi Dass vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 10 November, 2016
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 4701 of 2015
Date of Decision: 10.11.2016
________________________________________________________
.
Banarsi Dass ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting1?
For the petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents:
rt Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional
Advocate Generals and Mr. J.K. Verma & Mr. Kush
Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals, for
respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent
No. 5.
_______________________________________________________
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J (Oral).
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that he restricts his claim only to prayer clause No.2. It is apt to reproduce prayer clause No.2 herein:-
"(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued after fixing responsibility for their willful inordinate delay in making the said KVIC building functional and the interest accrued on the said amount of Rs. 4,42,900/- (which has been consumed for the construction of the said building) for seven years may be realized and also to sue respondent No.5 for submitting fake resolutions to the BDO, Pragpur as well as DRDA Kangra from time to time and thereby constructing illegal buildings."
Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:32:01 :::HCHP -2-2. Respondents have filed the reply. It is apt to reproduce paras No. 20 and 21 of the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 herein below:-
.
"20: That the contents of this Para are admitted to the extent that the KVIC building was completed in August 2008. However, the building could not be utilized for the intended purpose as its construction was brought into controversy by the petitioner himself. Subsequently the petitioner submitted a complaint in this behalf in Dec, 2011 alleging that the building had been constructed on Govt. land without following the due formalities. It is also true that the petitioner and respondent No.5 were called by the then Deputy Commissioner Kangra, Sh. K.R. of Bharti for personal hearing on 4.10.2012. However, it is denied that the respondent No.5 foulmouthed the petitioner during the course of the said personal hearing as has been alleged by him. Rather, the then Deputy Commissioner after hearing both the parties in person directed Additional Deputy Commissioner, rt Kangra to conduct a detailed enquiry on the issues raised by the petitioner in his complaint."
"21: That the contents of the Para are admitted to the extent that an enquiry was conducted by the then ADC Kangra in the O/o BDO Pragpur on 16.11.2012 and 7.2.2013 to enquire into the complaint of petitioner Sh. Banarasi Dass received in DRDA Kangra on 25.5.2012. However, it is denied that the above action was taken on any direction from Hon'ble High Court of H.P."
3. In view of the above stated position, respondents are directed to make the building functional within four weeks from today and submit compliance report before the Registrar (Judicial).
4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), as indicated hereinabove.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir),
Chief Justice
10th November, 2016 (Sandeep Sharma),
(cm Thakur) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:32:01 :::HCHP