Allowed

Vipin Kumar Hazri v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Oct 2017CWP/7824/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench, following the judgment in CWP No. 7850 of 2010, disposed of the writ petition by directing the State to issue a fresh notice within eight weeks, stipulating subsequent timelines for response and decision by the competent authority, while prohibiting action on the impugned notice.

What did the court decide?

Direction to issue fresh notice within 8 weeks, decide representation within 8 weeks after response, and not act on impugned notice.

Vipin Kumar Hazri Vs State of Hp — Property and Title | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 7824 of 2014 Decided on: 11.10.2017

¶3

Vipin Kumar Hazri		…Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.		...Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

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

¶6

Whether approved for reporting? No.

¶7

For the petitioner: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Dy.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 the aforesaid judgment, which shall form part and parcel of this judgment.

¶12

Accordingly, respondents are directed to:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving

¶22

the parties to bear their own costs.

¶23

Copy dasti .

¶24

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan),

¶25

Judge.

¶26

October 11, 2017

¶27

sanjeev

Vipin Kumar Hazri v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar Hazri 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

Raksha Gupta Vs State

Ramesh Chand and Others Vs Mamta Devi

State of Hp Vs Kamal Thakur

Owais Khan (In Person) Vs Prasar Bharti

Harpal Singh Vs Lajwanti

Rajesh Thakur Vs Padmawati