Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (1.32 seconds)Hpsidc Officers Welfare Association ... vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 27 December, 2022
3. Respondents herein had approached the High Court on
22.3.2012 by filing CWP No. 1945 of 2012, titled as HPSDIC Officers
Welfare Association and others Vs. State of H.P. & others. During
pendency of the Writ Petition, H.P. State Administrative Tribunal was
constituted by the State Government and accordingly Writ Petition was
transferred to the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal for listing for
consideration on 22.7.2015. Till then no reply was filed by the respondents-
State. Matter remained pending before the Tribunal as TA No. 4088 of
2015, till abolition of H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. After abolition of
erstwhile Tribunal petition was again transferred to this High Court and was
registered as CWPOA No. 3215 of 2019. Applicant-Respondent No. 2 had
filed reply to the petition on 10.4.2012. Whereas Applicant No. 1-State did
not file reply to the petition, except filing affidavit dated 23.5.2012 on
23.5.2012 in compliance of order dated 18.4.2012, whereby respondent-
State was directed to file affidavit on following aspects:-
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Om Prakash (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 5 August, 2004
In the Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs and others
vs. Union of India and another reported in (2023)10 SCC 531, the
Supreme Court after taking into consideration various pronouncements has
held as under:-
The Special Tehsildar, Land ... vs K.V. Ayisumma on 23 July, 1996
21. It is also apt to record that as observed by the Supreme Court
in The Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala Vs. K.V. Ayisumma,
12
2025:HHC:16468
CMP (M) No. 505 of 2024
(1996) 10 SCC 634 that it would not be necessary for the State to provide
day to day explanation of delay while seeking condonation of the same and
the Court should be pragmatic, but not pedantic by not adopting the strict
standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice, resulting in
public mischief by skillful management of delay in the process of filing the
appeal. However, in the given facts and circumstances of present case,
applicants are not entitled for benefit of the aforesaid observation/decision
of the Supreme Court, because, though an effort has been made to place
on record day to day movement of file from one Office to another, but it,
instead of explaining sufficient cause, has established that file was tossed
between applicants No 1 and 2 for no reasons and had also remained
pending for more than 5 months without any cause or reason. Therefore,
recital of date to day movement of file is also not helpful to the applicants in
present case.
1