The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing a second appeal against an order dated 11.04.2023. It held that the direction to consider the respondent's case did not grant positive relief and no stay hindered implementation.
Application for condonation of delay dismissed; unregistered LPA dismissed.
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:4776 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMP(M) No.840 of 2024 Date of Decision: 08.07.2024.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ..Appellants
Versus Amar Singh ...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.7375 of 2019.
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)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 363 days in filing the second appeal can be condoned for seeking a fresh hearing on the respondent's case.
Whether the impugned judgment requires implementation without any positive relief being granted to the respondent.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Amar Singh
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
