Dismissed

T.R.Jain v. Director General(Rdss)

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Sept 2013CWP/3826/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three civil writ petitions contesting delays in road and bridge construction. Finding an assurance by authorities to commence work expeditiously, the Court recorded satisfaction, noted expectations for completion, and allowed petitioners future recourse if grievances persist, without granting substantive relief.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; no substantive relief granted other than recording assurance and reserving future recourse.

T.R.Jain Vs Director General(R… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Himachal Pradesh HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

		CWP No. 7249 of 2010 a/w
		CWPs No. 3826 & 4730 of 2011
		Decided on: 06.09.2013
CWP No. 7249 of 2010
Davinder Chauhan Jaita		…Petitioner.
	Versus
State of H.P. & others ...............................................	..................	…Respondents. .......................................................................
CWP No. 3826 of 2011
T.R. Jain		…Petitioner.
	Versus
Director General (RD&SS) & ...............................................	others ..................	…Respondents. .......................................................................
CWP No. 4730 of 2010
Residents of Paonta Sahib		…Petitioner.
	Versus
Union of India & others		…Respondents.

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice.

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

For the petitioners:	Petitioners in person in CWPs No. 7249 of 2010 & 3826 of 2011.
	Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Avdocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 4730 of 2011.
For the respondents:	Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr. Romesh Verma & Mr. Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate Generals, and Mr. J.K. Verma & Ms. Parul Negi, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondents- State.
	Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for Union of India.
	Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 4 in CWP No. 7249 of 2010.

¶8

A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. (Oral)

¶9

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the statement made on affidavit by the State Authorities and as we find no reason to doubt the

¶10

correctness of the assurance given therein coupled with the fact that the concerned Authorities of Union of India have reported to have commenced the process of construction of the subject roads and bridges, referred to in the present proceedings and assure to complete the construction in right earnest, we are of the opinion that noting more is required to be done except to place on record that we hope that the construction and the maintenance work of the concerned roads and bridges will be completed expeditiously by the concerned Authorities. If any of the petitioner or any person affected has any grievance, will be free to take recourse to appropriate proceedings and including to revive the concerned petition by taking out a formal application for that purpose. The same can be considered on its own merits.

¶11

Petitions are disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶12

(A.M. Khanwilkar) Chief Justice

¶13

(V.K. Sharma ) Judge

¶14

September 6, 2013 ( karan / rajni )

T.R.Jain v. Director General(Rdss)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.R.Jain v. Director General(Rdss)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Devi Vs State

Nain Singh Tomar Vs State

Ms I a Energy Vs State

Des Raj Vs State

Residents of Paonta Sahib Vs State

Bhal Chand Vs Jagdish Chand Sharma