Aditi Papta Vs Union of India and Others

( 2024:HHC:10987 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMP(M)No. 1597 of 2024 alongwith LPA No. 125 of 2024.

Date of decision: 05.11.2024.

1.CMP(M) No. 1597 of 2024
Aditi Papta	…..Appellant.
Versus
Union of India and others	…..Respondents.
2. LPA No. 125 of 2024
Grant Thornton Bharat LLP	… Appellant.
Versus Ms. Aditi Papta and others	… Respondents.
*Coram*

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?^{1 No}

¶7

For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate for the applicant/appellant in CMP(M) No. 1597 of 2024 and for respondent No.1 in LPA No. 125 of 2024. Ms. Shradha Karol, Advocate, for the appellant, in LPA No.125 of 2024 and for respondent No.4 in CMP(M) No. 1597 of 2024. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Balram Sharma, Dy. Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev

¶8

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

¶9

2

¶10

( 2024:HHC:10987 )

¶11

Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2 in CMP(M) No. 1597 of 2024 and for respondent No.3 & 4 in LPA No. 125 of 2024.

¶12

Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Sushant Keprate, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocates General, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan and Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No. 3 in CMP(M) No. 1597 of 2024 and for respondent No. 2 in LPA No. 125 of 2024.

¶13

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶14

CMP(M) No. 1597 of 2024.

¶15

Both the parties are aggrieved by the judgment passed

¶16

by the learned Writ Court on 08.04.2024 in CWP No. 3019 of 2024, which reads as under:

¶17

“Though, prima facie this Court is convinced that present petition is not maintainable, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already approached respondent No.4 for redressal of her grievance, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent No.4 to consider and decide the representation sent through email (Annexure P-3 colly), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of hearing to

¶18

3

¶19

( 2024:HHC:10987 )

¶20

the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order. Liberty is reserved to be petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any.”

¶21

The appeal filed by respondent No.4 has been registered as LPA No. 125 of 2024, whereas, in the appeal filed by the writ petitioner, there is delay of 143 days’ in filing of the appeal. Since, the appeal filed on behalf respondent No.4 against the same judgment is pending consideration, therefore, issue notice to the respondents.

¶22

Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Gobind Korla, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Shradha Karol, Advocate appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents.

¶23

The mere fact that the appeal filed by respondent No.4 against the same judgment is pending consideration is by itself a sufficient cause to condone the delay.

¶24

That apart, for the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant-appellant, we deem it appropriate to condone 143 days’ delay that has crept up in filing of the appeal. Ordered accordingly. Application stands disposed of.

¶25

Appeal be registered.

¶26

4

¶27

( 2024:HHC:10987 )

¶28

LPA No.358 of 2024 & LPA No. 125 of 2024.

¶29

As regards the writ petitioner, she by way of LPA No.358 of 2024 takes exception to the findings prima facie recorded regarding the maintainability of writ petition, whereas, respondent No.4 takes exception to the further directions passed by the learned Writ Court to consider and decide the representation made by the writ petitioner. According to the appellant in LPA No. 125 of 2024, once the petition was held to be prima facie not maintainable, then no further directions to consider the representation of the writ petitioner could have been passed by the learned Writ Court.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the considered view that since no firm findings have been recorded by the learned Writ Court as regards the maintainability of the writ petition and the findings as recorded, at best are only prima facie, as is otherwise borne out from the opening lines of the judgment dated 08.04.2024, it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the learned Writ Court.

¶31

In the given facts and circumstances, we dispose of these appeals by remitting the matter back to the learned Writ Court to decide the writ petition afresh in accordance with law.

¶32