Disposed

Shesh Ram v. Managing Director Hp State Forest Development Corporation and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Apr 2024CWP/3071/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a Writ petition seeking refund of unreturned security of Rs. 2 lakh. Court ruled petition not maintainable prima-facie due to disputable facts. Granted liberty to file representation to respondent within two weeks for redress.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to petitioner to file representation before respondent within two weeks for redressal, to be decided expeditiously by competent authority.

Shesh Ram Vs Managing Director Hp State Forest Development Corporation and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.3071 of 2024

¶3

Date of Decision: 10.04.2024

¶4

________________________________________ Shesh Ram	_______________ …….Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director and others	… Respondents
________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹	_______________

¶5

For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. D.S.Kainth, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶6

Having regard to the nature of the prayer made in the instant petition, prima-facie, this Court is of the view that present petition is not maintainable.

¶7

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that despite repeated requests, security amounting to Rs. 2.00 lakh is not being refunded to the petitioner for the last more than six years. 3. Bare perusal of the documents placed on record reveals that before filing the petition at hand, petitioner had been representing

¶8

to the various authorities, including the Hon’ble Chief Minister,

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

Himachal Pradesh, but security amount of Rs. 2 lakh furnished by the petitioner while doing work of felling and carrying of trees in the year 2018 has been not refunded till date. Since, disputed questions of facts and law are involved in the case, this Court without commenting upon the merit of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file representation before respondent No.1, within a period of two weeks, praying therein for redressal of his grievance, which in turn, shall be decided by competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly.

¶12

Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order. Liberty is further reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶13

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶14

April 10, 2024 (shankar)

Shesh Ram v. Managing Director Hp State Forest Development Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shesh Ram v. Managing Director Hp State Forest Development Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leeladhar Vs State of Hp

Desh Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others

Jai Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Kritika Sharma and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

State Bank of India Vs District Magistrate Sirmaur and Others

Ram Nath Sharma Vs Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Another