Disposed

Laxman Singh v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Mar 2022CWPIL/6/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought direction to remove obstructions on a public link road. The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to verify the petitioner's representations and remove blockages within one month if grievances were found genuine.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 directed to verify petitioner's representations and remove obstructions from the link road within one month if grievances are found genuine.

Laxman Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 3^rd DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,

¶5

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

¶8

CIVIL WRIT PUPLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

¶9

No. 6 OF 2022

¶10

Between :-

¶11

LAXMAN SINGH, AGED 56 YEARS, SON OF LATE SH. POHLO RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SARTI, P.O. BHAGER, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

¶12

…PETITIONER (BY MR. GURJIV SINGH VIRDHI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PWD) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIML-2.

¶15

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BILASPUR AT BILASPUR, H.P.

¶16

3. SUB DIVISION MAGISTRATE (CIVIL) GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

¶17

4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, 10^th CIRCLE, HPPWD,BILASPUR, H.P.

¶18

5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HP PWD

¶19

¶20

DIVISION GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

¶21

6. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P

¶22

7. KASHI RAM, SON OF SH. MUNSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SARTI, P.O. BHAGER, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

¶23

8. SANJIV KUMAR, SON OF SH. KASHI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SARTI, P.O. BHAGER, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. VIKAS RATHORE, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1 TO R-6)

¶26

¶27

This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon’ble

¶28

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua , passed the following :

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents for

¶31

taking action for removal of obstructions and blockages over the public link road in question.

¶32

2. The case set-up is that respondent No. 1 decided to construct 31 link/ambulance roads under 10^th Circle, HP PWD Bilaspur. One such road approved for construction was Upper Bhager to Kalari-Sarti road with Code No. 2017-307-725. Budget

¶33

of Rs. 34.07 lacs for construction of this link road was also

¶34

¶35

sanctioned. The ambulance road in question was to be constructed only after donation of land by the residents. The work was to start after the transfer of land in favour of the State Government.

¶36

3. It has further been submitted that 27 persons, including the petitioner and respondent No. 7, who is father of respondent No. 8, donated lands by way of gift deeds in favour of HP PWD for construction of the link road. In June 2021 tenders were floated by respondent No. 5 for construction of culvert at RD 1/425. The tender was also awarded in favour of a Government contractor for a sum of Rs. 12,20,739/-. Huge amount was spent by respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 for construction of the road. Though the road is still under construction, but the vehicles especially the ambulance etc. can ply on the road. Residents of the area have also been using the road and plying their vehicles over it since 2018.

¶37

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No. 7 and 8 blocked the link road in question on 24.11.2021 by putting bamboo sticks and by stacking huge heaps of soil and muck. Resultantly the ingress from the main road and outgress from the link road in question to the main road has been blocked. That respondents No. 7 and 8 have even put barbed wire at the entry point of the link road. Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶38

¶39

submitted that despite repeated representations preferred to the official respondents, the road has still not been restored for use by the general public.

¶40

5. Having regard to the submissions made in the writ petition, as canvassed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, without adverting to merits of contentions raised, we dispose of this writ petition by directing respondent No. 2 to verify the assertions made by the petitioner in his representations at Annexure P-6 dated 25.11.2021, Annexure P-9 dated 30.11.2021 and Annexure P-11 dated 08.12.2021. In case the grievances of the petitioner are found to be genuine, then action in accordance with law be taken for ensuring that the obstructions and blockages over the link road in question are removed. Appropriate order, in accordance with law, in this regard be passed and resultant action be taken within a period of one month from today. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶41

( Mohammad Rafiq ) Chief Justice

Laxman Singh v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Singh v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Semba Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Nripjeet Singh Thakur and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Dharampal Premchand Ltd. Vs Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate

Sanjay Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

Nishant Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Neelam Kumari Vs State of Hp