The State sought condonation of a 363-day delay in filing an LPA challenging an order directing reconsideration of the respondent's case in light of Surajmani's judgment. The Court found the explanation unsatisfactory, noting no stay existed and only consideration was directed, and dismissed the application.
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.
( 2024:HHC:4777 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMP(M) No.835 of 2024 Date of Decision: 08.07.2024.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ..Appellants
Versus Lala Ram ...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?1
| For the Applicants | : | Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Pranay Pratap |
|---|---|---|
| Singh, Additional Advocate Generals and | ||
| Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy 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 363 days’ in filing the LPA against the order dt. 11.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.1416 of 2020.
the respondent was called for personal hearing on 19th June, 2023 and
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
thereafter the matter was referred to applicant No.1 on 10.07.2023, who had sought some clarification in the matter on 31.08.2023; and the same was sent to applicant No.1 on 02.09.2023; and thereafter directions were issued by applicant No.1 on 03.10.2023 to pass speaking orders in the matter in view of Surajmani’s judgment. It is contended that applicant No.2 on 29.11.2023 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 29.05.2024. It is stated that the delay is on account of above stated reasons and is prayed to be condoned.
3
only to consider the case of the respondent and no other positive relief had
been granted.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Chief Justice
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge
8th July, 2024
(Subhash/Ankit)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the 363 days' delay in filing the LPA against the Single Judge's order dated 11.04.2023 should be condoned on the administrative reasons stated by the State.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SurajmaniReferred¶3
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Lala Ram
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
