Sukhdarshan and Others Vs Hpspcb — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Sukhdarshan and Others Vs Hpspcb — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Execution petition proceedings closed, with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 06.07.2019 (Annexure R-1) of the respondent-Board in accordance with law, if so advised; petitioners to be deemed to have gained knowledge of that order from the date of filing of the reply (26.06.2024).

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 4331 of 2017, whose execution was sought, had been acted upon/complied with by the respondent-Board. +1 more

Court's answer

The proceedings in the execution petition are closed, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 06.07.2019 in accordance with law, if so advised.

Ratio / Principle

As there is no material on record from which it could be inferred that the copy of the order dated 06.07.2019 was actually communicated to the petitioners earlier (though the respondent-Board claims it was sent through registered post), it is to be construed that the petitioners gained knowledge of that order only from the date of filing of the reply (26.06.2024).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition — Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board. Petitioners sought execution of order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 4331 of 2017. The respondent-Board, through its reply filed on 26.06.2024, produced order dated 06.07.2019 (Annexure R-1) whereby the petitioners' case stood rejected; the petitioners stated they learnt of this order only upon filing of the reply. The Court closed the execution proceedings but expressly reserved liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 06.07.2019 in accordance with law, if so advised. Further observing that there was no material on record showing that the copy of the order had been actually communicated to the petitioners earlier (despite the Board's stand that it was sent through registered post), the Court held that the petitioners are to be construed as having gained knowledge of the order only from the date of filing of the reply, so that their delay in assailing it is not to their disadvantage.

2024:HHC:4957 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Execution Petition No. 60 of 2024

Decided on: 11.07.2024

Sukhdarshan and others .…Petitioners

Versus

Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Baord …Respondent Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the petitioners :	Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior
	Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate.
For the respondent :	Mr. DheerajThakur, Advocate.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge	(Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the execution of order dated 16.05.2019, passed by erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 4331 of 2017.

Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in terms of order dated 06.07.2019, which is appended with reply filed to the petition as Annexure R-1, appropriate order stands passed by the respondent-Board in terms whereof the case of the petitioners stands rejected.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in this view of the matter, these proceedings be closed but with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order that

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

2

has been passed by the Authority concerned. He further submitted that as the petitioners came to know about passing of order Annexure R-1 only when reply to the execution petition was filed on 26.06.2024, therefore, the factum of the order Annexure R-1, dated 06.07.2019, in terms whereof, their case was rejected, should not be construed to the disadvantage of the petitioners so as to take it that they have not assailed said order within some reasonable time.

Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and also learned Counsel for the respondent-Board and taking into consideration the fact that it stands spelled out in the reply which was filed on 26.06.2024 that the case of the petitioners was dismissed on 06.07.2019, these proceedings are closed but with liberty to the petitioners to challenge order dated 06.07.2019 in accordance with law, if so advised.

It is further observed that as there is no material on record from which it could be inferred that the copy of the order was actually communicated to the petitioners earlier, though it is the stand of the respondent-Board that it was sent to them through registered post, therefore, it be construed that the petitioners have gained the knowledge of this order from the date of filing of the reply.