Allowed

Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC8 May 2017RP/22/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition allowed arising from a prior writ order regarding the withdrawal of an NOC for an Ayurvedic Medical College. The High Court set aside its previous finding based on new facts indicating the withdrawal was done without Cabinet approval.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; the judgment of 22.4.2017 in CWP No. 475 of 2017 is reviewed; the writ petition restored to original number and listed for hearing on 15.5.2017.

Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

Review Petition No.22 of 2017. Date of Decision : 8^th May, 2017.

¶3

Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust	…Petitioner
*Versus*
State of Himachal Pradesh	…Respondent.
Coram

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No

¶5

For the Petitioner	:	Mr. M. L. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent	:	Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate with Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Verma, Addl. Advocate Gene	General, Romesh rals and
		Mr. J.K.Verma, Deputy General.	Advocate

¶6

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)

¶7

This petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeks review of the judgment passed by this Court on 22.4.2017 in CWP No. 475 of 2017 on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶8

The petitioner had filed the above noted civil writ petition against the action of the respondent whereby the NOC earlier granted in its favour for establishing an Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital at Nalagarh with 60 seats of BAMS course was withdrawn vide impugned order dated 14.3.2017.

¶9

______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes

¶10

¶11

In the judgment passed by this Court, it has been specifically observed that the NOC which had earlier been granted with the approval of the Minister-Incharge of the Ayurveda Department had thereafter been placed before the Cabinet and was ordered to be withdrawn. This would be evident from para-6 of the judgment, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:

¶12

“6. The respondent contested the petition by filing a reply, wherein, it has been averred that the General Administration Department of the Government has framed Rules of Business for guidance of various departments working under it. These Rules, in turn, specify the competent authority to decide different nature of cases. It has admitted that the NOC was, in fact, granted in favour of the petitioner but the same was only with the prior approval of the Minister-Incharge of the Ayurveda Department. However, thereafter the Hon’ble Chief Minister desired that such matter should be placed before the Cabinet. Accordingly, when the matter was placed before the Cabinet, the NOC earlier granted in favour of the petitioner was ordered to be withdrawn.”

¶13

It is vehemently contended by Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the NOC granted by the competent authority was never placed before the Cabinet and as a matter of fact was withdrawn by the respondent, Principal Secretary (Ayurveda) at his own level without placing the matter before the Cabinet.

¶14

It was in light of the aforesaid submissions that the respondent-State was called upon to ascertain the factual matrix. 5. The respondent has now placed on record a communication dated 6.5.2017 wherein it has been categorically stated that NOC earlier granted to the petitioner-Trust with the prior approval of the Minister-in-Charge was withdrawn on the directions of the

¶15

¶16

Hon’ble Chief Minister and had not been placed before the Cabinet as was observed by this Court in the impugned judgment.

¶17

In view of this factual position, evidently there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the judgment dated 22.4.2017 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 475 of 2017 is reviewed. The writ petition i.e. CWP No. 475 of 2017 is restored to its original number and be listed for hearing on 15.5.2017.

¶18

The review petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms,

¶19

leaving the parties to bear their costs.

¶20

(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice

¶21

May 8, 2017. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan), (GR) Judge

Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Vipul Travels Vs State of Hp

Sanjay Bhardwaj Vs State of Hp

Ms New Prem Bus Service Vs State of Hp

Narinder Singh Vs State of Hp

Lalit Narain Mishra Vs Yash Paul Sharma

Punjab National Bank Vs Deepika Vaishnav