The court dismissed the State's application for condonation of delay of 355 days in filing a Limitation Act appeal. The court held that despite the judgment being challenged in the Supreme Court, the State was duty-bound to implement the High Court direction without a stay, rendering the delay unjustified.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:4839 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CMP(M) No. 744 of 2024.
Date of Decision: 10th July, 2024.
State of H.P. & Anr. . ...Applicants. Versus Dharam Chand. ... .Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Applicants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Nemo.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)
This application is filed by the applicants seeking condonation of delay of 355 days’ in filing the LPA against the order dt. 11.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 1446 of 2020.
and thereafter the matter was referred to applicant No.1, who had sought
…2…
some clarification in the matter on 31.08.2023; and the same was sent to applicant No.1; and thereafter directions were issued by applicant No.1 to pass speaking orders in the matter in view of Surajmani’s judgment. It is contended that applicant No.2 asked the Secretary (Forest) as to
whether the judgment in Surajmani’s case has attained finality or agitated further; and it was informed by the Secretary (Forest) that judgment in LPA no. 165 of 2021 has been challenged further in the Supreme Court; thereafter legal opinion was sought from the Law department on 28.12.2023; legal opinion was tendered on 13.02.2024 and the LPA was filed on 21.05.2024. It is stated that the delay is on account of above stated reasons and is prayed to be condoned.
…3…
impugned judgment was only to consider the case of the respondent and
no other positive relief had been granted.
condonation of delay in filing the LPA and the same is accordingly
dismissed. Consequently, the unregistered LPA is also dismissed.
Chief Justice.
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge
10th July, 2024. (sushma)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 355 days in filing the LPA against the Single Judge's order deserves to be condoned?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surajmani’s judgmentReferred¶14
State of H.P.
Dharam Chand
M. S. Ramachandra Rao
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
