Allowed

Ruma Devi v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Oct 2017CWP/2686/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bench referred to Division Bench judgment in Shiv Kumar case and disposed of the present writ petition in accordance thereto, directing issuance of fresh notice and specifying timelines for response and decision.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to issue fresh notice in 8 weeks; petitioner to respond in 6 weeks; competent authority to decide in 8 weeks; earlier show-cause notice not to be acted upon.

Ruma Devi Vs State of Hp — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 2686 of 2016 Decided on: 12.10.2017

¶3

Ruma Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting? No.

¶7

For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. A.G.

¶8

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶9

The parties are ad idem that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7850 of 2010, titled Shiv Kumar

¶10

versus State of H.P. & others alongwith other connected matters decided on 14.09.2017.

¶11

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in terms of

¶12

the aforesaid judgment, which shall form part and parcel of this judgment.

¶13

Accordingly, respondents are directed to:-

¶14

(a) Issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from today.

¶15

(b) Response whereof shall be filed by the petitioner within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter.

¶16

¶17

(c) Thereafter the competent authority shall decide the said representation in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks.

¶18

(d) In the event of decision being against the petitioner, it shall be open for him to agitate the issue afresh in accordance with law.

¶19

(e) Further, in view of the above, earlier notice of show cause/demand notice, impugned to this petition, shall not be acted upon.

¶20

(f) Withdrawal of notice, impugned in this petition, shall not be construed to be waiver of right of the State, more so, when consolidated notice is intended to be issued.

¶21

(g) Till and so long the decision not taken, no due certificate for fresh grant/renewal of lease shall not be withheld by the respondents and it shall be issued subject to the outcome of the decision and outcome of the proceedings based upon the consolidated/individual notice.

¶22

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving

¶23

the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶24

Copy dasti .

¶25

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.

¶26

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge.

¶27

October 12, 2017 sanjeev

Ruma Devi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruma Devi 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

State of Hp Vs Kapil Verma @ Pinku

State Vs Dinu Ram

State Vs Het Ram

State of Hp Vs Hem Raj Verma

Parmod Kumar Alias Golu Vs State of Hp