Disposed

Umesh Sood v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Aug 2020CWP/512/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court permitted the petitioner to file a detailed response to the Municipal Corporation Commissioner regarding the disputed nature of the building's authorized portion before finalizing the dispute over the disconnection of electricity and water supply.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to petitioner to furnish documents and file a detailed response within a week to the Commissioner regarding the authorized portion of the building.

Umesh Sood Vs State of Hp and Others — Landlord and Tenant | Himachal Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 512 of 2020. Date of Decision : August 04, 2020.

Umesh Sood

...Petitioner.

Versus

State of H.P. & Others

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

Coram:

¶10

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶12

For the petitioner : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with Ms. Rita Goswami, Addl. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

COURT PROCEEDINGS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

¶14

Anoop Chitkara, Judge . (Oral)

¶15

Seeking quashing of orders dated 14.2.2019, Annexure P-5, passed by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Dharamshala, second respondent, and dated 9.1.2020, Annexure P-8, passed by Assistant Engineer, HPSEBL, third respondent, whereby the second respondent had withdrawn the NOC of first and second floor of the building constructed over khasra No.2574, and acting on the same, the Assistant Engineer had disconnected the electricity and water connection, the petitioner, has come up before this Court.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

We have heard Mr. Adarsh K. Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. Rita Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. and Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶19

In the response filed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Dharamshala, second respondent, it is submitted that the petitioner did not furnish the requisite information in response to the earlier notices issued by the said respondent, leading to the impugned order Annexure P-5 dated 14.2.2019. It is further submitted that the petitioner is using the electricity installed for the authorized portion to the unauthorized portion.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically denied all these allegations. In response to the allegations of non-furnishing of requisite documents, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if he is permitted to furnish all such documents and the second and third respondents may consider such additional documents because the electricity and water connection, which have been disconnected pursuant to the order dated 14.2.2019, Annexure P-5 was in the authorized portion of the building constructed by his father way back in 1970.

¶21

In this petition, there is a disputed question of fact about the portion of the building constructed in the year 1970, which was authorized and subsequently unauthorized construction.

¶22

Given above, we accede to the request of the petitioner and permit him to file detailed response to the second respondent, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Dharamshala, who, within a week of its receipt, shall decide the same. It is further clarified that the portion, which are authorized, the disconnection of electricity and water supply shall be resumed immediately after such fact finding by second respondent. Since the matter involves essential services therefore, although we have given one week time to the second respondent to decide the same, yet we hope that the second respondent shall decide the same as early as possible.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is closed. The petitioner is at liberty to seek redressal of his grievances, if any, at an appropriate forum. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶24

(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice.

¶25

(Anoop Chitkara), Judge

¶26

August 04, 2020 (ps)

Umesh Sood v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Sood v. State of Hp and Others

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

Narinder Singh Vs Hrtc and Another

Bhadur Singh Vs the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Harbans Lal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Shahid Khan Vs State of Hp and Others

Ranbir Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.