Disposed

Maheshi Ram v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2017CWP/2122/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, acting on representations similar to those in leadership of CWP 1540 of 2013, disposed of three concurrent writ petitions. The Court directed petitioners to file representations before the High Power Committee within eight weeks and directed the Committee to decide them within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file representations before the High Power Committee within eight weeks; Committee directed to decide within three months.

Maheshi Ram Vs State of Hp — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWPs No.2122, 2126 & 2127 of 2017 Date of decision: 21.09.2017

¶3

CWP No.2122 of 2017 Maheshi Ram ..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. & others . Respondents

¶6

CWP No.2126 of 2017 Bishan Dass ..Petitioner Versus

¶7

State of H.P. & others . Respondents

¶8

CWP No.2127 of 2017 Rakesh Kumar ..Petitioner Versus

¶9

State of H.P. & others . Respondents

¶10

Coram:

¶11

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No.

¶12

For the petitioners: Mr.Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate.

¶13

For the respondents: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr.Anup Rattan, Mr.Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, Mr.J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the State of Himachal Pradesh.

¶14

Mr.Y.W. Chauhan, Advocate, for the State of Rajasthan.

¶15

¶16

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral)

¶17

Learned counsel for the parties state at the Bar that similar matters were considered by this Court in a batch of cases, lead case of which is CWP No.1540 of 2013 , titled Bakshi Ram vs. Union of India , decided on 6^th November, 2013 and pray that

¶18

¶19

these writ petitions be disposed of in terms of the judgment (supra). Their statements are taken on record.

¶20

It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment, referred to above:-

¶21

“2. It is not in dispute that after the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti, Rajasthan & Another versus Union of India & Others , (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 749, a high power committee has been constituted to look into the grievance of the petitioners and similar situate persons. This committee is still functional.

¶22

Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to make representation(s) before the high power committee. The committee shall look into the grievance of the petitioners and similar situate persons within a period of six months after receipt of the representation(s). The committee shall also be guided by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.492 of 2007, titled as “Ashwani Kumar V. Union of India”, decided on 29.3.2011, against which an SLP was preferred which was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2.1.2013. It is made clear that the limitation/delay shall not come in the way of the petitioner(s). It is also made clear that the high power committee shall decide the cases individually and pass speaking/detailed order(s), strictly as per the averments made in the representation(s). It is further clarified that if the land is available in Sriganganagar (reserved area), this aspect shall also be taken into consideration. The respondent- State is also directed to issue the eligibility

¶23

¶24

certificate in favour of the petitioners in CWPs No. 11070 of 2011-G and 1158 of 2013 in order to enable them to present their cases before the high power committee.”

¶25

It is also stated that the judgment, referred to above, was also followed by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in SLP(C) No.21904 of 2012 , titled State of Rajasthan & another vs. Ashwani Kumar Sharma & others , decided on 2^nd January, 2013 and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

¶26

In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of these writ petitions in terms of the judgment made by the learned Single Judge (supra) with liberty to the writ petitioners to file representation(s) within eight weeks before the High Power Committee. The said Committee is directed to decide the same within three months thereafter.

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of alongwith all pending applications, if any.

¶28

Copy dasti .

¶29

September 21, 2017 ( Sandeep Sharma ) (vt) Judge

Maheshi Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheshi Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Singh Vs State

Sewak Ram Vs State of Hp

Vidya Devi Vs State of Hp

Amita Rani Vs State of Hp

Rajni Sharma Vs A.J.V Parsad

Hp 108 Contract Workers Union Vs State of Hp