Disposed

Rai Chand v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Aug 2017CWP/3144/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this oral judgment, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held it premature to quash an order without evidence of its issuance. The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation with grievances within eight weeks and clarified that no felling order would be processed on already filed applications prior to the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation within eight weeks; no felling order to be issued on prior application.

Rai Chand Vs State — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP No. 3144/2012-E Date of decision: August 3, 2017

¶3

Rai Chand .....Petitioner

¶4

Versus State of H.P. and others .…Respondents

¶5

Coram :

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the petitioner : Mr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate For respondents No.1to3 : M/s. Anup Rattan and Romesh Verma, Addl. A.Gs.

¶8

For respondent No.4 : Mr. G. S. Rathour, Advocate

¶9

Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (Oral)

¶10

Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Additional Advocate General states

¶11

that no felling order ever came to be issued in favour of respondent No.4. Such submission is made on the basis of response filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Chopal (respondent No.2).

¶12

In this view of the matter, we find payer (i) of the writ petition to the effect that felling permission so granted be quashed and set-aside to be absolutely premature.

¶13

Insofar as petitioner’s prayer (ii) of deciding his representation is concerned, the State cannot have any grievance to that effect. Noticeably, such representation came to be made in the year 2012, since when the present petition is pending.

¶14

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

¶16

Under these circumstances, we direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation, venting out his grievances, within a period of eight weeks from today. Upon receipt of such representation, if any, the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, more so, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including the petitioner.

¶17

5 It stands clarified that no felling order shall be issued on the basis of the application so processed prior to the filing of the present petition. If at all, felling permission is to be granted, the process shall be started afresh. It is further clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case, more so on the action of the authorities in processing the application for felling the trees without associating the petitioner.

¶18

6 With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.

¶19

Copy dasti.

¶20

(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.

¶21

August 3, 2017 (Sandeep Sharma), (rana) Judge.

Rai Chand v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rai Chand v. State

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

Anoop Sharma Vs Tarun Shridhar

G.S.Guleria Vs State

Jyoti Education Welfare Society Regd. Vs State of Hp

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ms Shoghi Communication Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ms Him Knit Feb

Ms Zee Laboratories Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax