Amar Dev Vs State of Hp and Others

2024:HHC:13420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.14669 of 2022 Date of Decision: 05.12.2024

___________________________________ Amar Dev State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.	_________ Versus	___	______________________ ……...Petitioner …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Shar Whether approved for reporting?	ma, Jud	ge.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gurdev	Singh N	egi,	Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Rajan Additional	Kahol Advocate	& Ge	Mr. Vishal Panwar, nerals, with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, respondent	Deputy s-State.	Ad	vocate General, for
_____________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J .(Oral)_	__________	___	________________________

¶5

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order dated 22.03.2023 passed by District Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, whereby order dated 12.10.2023 passed by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, thereby application made by the petitioner for grant of third token came to be rejected, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity and as such, no interference is called for.

¶6

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Gurdev Singh

¶7

2

¶8

2024:HHC:13420

¶9

Negi, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that both the authorities below have failed to take note of bye-laws of the society, while considering the prayer made on behalf of petitioner for grant of third token on account of his being disabled.

¶10

Careful perusal of pleadings as well as documents adduced on record reveals that petitioner herein made a prayer before respondent/society to permit him to purchase new vehicle and allot third token on the ground of his disability. While making such prayer, petitioner herein cited example of two persons namely Mr. Nand Lal and Mr. Deepak Kumar, who being disabled were allowed to ply the vehicle in society. Afore prayer made on behalf of petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that there is no provision in the bye-laws to allot token in favour of person on account of his being disabled or handicapped. Respondent/society categorically stated before the authority below that special permission was granted in favour of persons namely Mr. Deepak and Mr. Nand Lal vide resolution dated 14.11.2015 is relaxation of policy dated 12.09.2015, but at present there is no provision, whereby prayer made on behalf of petitioner to grant third token can be accepted. District Inspector Cooperative Societies, while passing impugned order, has categorically observed that since there is complete ban imposed by the respondent/society vide resolution No. 6 dated 10.06.2017 for granting permission to ply new vehicle, prayer made on behalf of petitioner cannot be accepted,

¶11

3

¶12

2024:HHC:13420

¶13

but as and when applications, if any, invited by the society from disabled persons for plying the new vehicle of the society, petitioner herein is always at liberty to apply. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner herein is already plying two vehicles in the society and there is no provision in the bye-laws for providing third token on the basis of disability, no illegality can be said to have been committed by both the authorities below, while passing impugned order.

¶14

Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and as such, same is upheld. Present petition fails and dismissed accordingly. Needless to say, as and when fresh applications, if any, are invited by the respondent/society for plying new vehicle under the category of disability, petitioner herein can apply, which prayer of him shall be considered and decided by the society in accordance with bye-laws.

¶15

December 05, 2024

¶16

(Sunil)

¶17

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Amar Dev v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Dev v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Eastman Auto and Power Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Lekh Ram Vs Payal Behel

Rajesh Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

M/S R.D. Enterprises Vs State of Hp and Others

Devi Ram Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Another

Surinder Singh Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Another