Dismissed¶42

State of Hp v. Rittu Bhalla

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Jul 2025CMP.M/96/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 212 days delay; Letters Patent Appeal; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rittu Bhalla; LPA No.343 of 2025; CMP(M) No.96 of 2025; CWP No.5808 of 2020 judgment dated 30.04.2024; certified copy applied after five months; sufficient cause; rights accrued; representations dated 06.09.2024 and 30.10.2024; CWP No.12242 of 2024; Deputy Commissioner Shimla implementation direction 18.11.2024; Nakal Register Intkal No.126; sale deed dated 04.05.1962; Sudershan Bhatia; Financial Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 28.02.2020 upheld; HRTC v. Janak Raj CMP(M) No.857 of 2023; Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563.

What did the court decide?

None to the applicant/appellant; the application for condonation of delay and the appeal stand dismissed. ¶42

State of Hp Vs Rittu Bhalla — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the applicant/appellant; the application for condonation of delay and the appeal stand dismissed.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 212 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No.343 of 2025) against the judgment dated 30.04.2024 in CWP No.5808 of 2020 should be condoned.

¶16

Court's answer

The State slept over the matter and gave no explanation even for applying for the certified copy after five months; meanwhile, the respondent's representations led to a direction by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, to implement the judgment, showing that certain rights had accrued in favour of the respondent.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

No sufficient cause was made out in the application for condonation of delay; the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently the appeal along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, was also dismissed.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ and Ranjan Sharma, J.) dismissed the State's LPA No.343 of 2025 against the judgment dated 30.04.2024 in CWP No.5808 of 2020, refusing to condone a delay of 212 days. The State applied for a certified copy of the impugned judgment only about five months after its pronouncement and offered no explanation for the lapse; in the meantime, the respondent's representations dated 06.09.2024 and 30.10.2024 led the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, on 18.11.2024 to direct implementation of the judgment, and revenue entries were made in her favour on 29.11.2024 (Nakal Register Intkal No.126), showing accrued rights. Following the coordinate-bench decision in Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Janak Raj (CMP(M) No.857 of 2023, decided 18.12.2023), which had relied on Supreme Court authority including Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Bench held that no sufficient cause was made out, dismissed the condonation application, and consequently dismissed the appeal along with pending miscellaneous application(s).

¶1

2025:HHC:21272

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CMP(M) No.96 of 2025 and LPA No.343 of 2025

¶4

Decided on: 03.07.2025

¶5

______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh

¶6

...Applicant/Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Rittu Bhalla

¶9

...Non-Applicant/Respondent

¶10

Coram

¶11

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶12

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶13

For the applicant/ : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional appellant Advocate General. For the non-applicant : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior /respondent Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.

¶14

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]

¶15

CMP[M] No.96 of 2025 & LPA No.343 of 2025

¶16

The present Letters Patent Appeal is barred

¶17

by 212 days filed against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.5808 of 2020, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Smt. Ritu Bhalla, decided on

¶18

30.04.2024.

¶19

2. In the application filed by the State to condone

¶20

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶21

2025:HHC:21272

¶22

¶23

delay in filing the appeal, it has been mentioned that certified copy of judgment was only received in the Office of the applicants-appellants on 19.10.2024 since it had been applied on 24.09.2024 and attested on 26.09.2024. It was thereafter the legal opinion, as such, was taken on 16.11.2024 for assailing the judgment and the appeal was thus filed on 29.11.2024.

¶24

3. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, inaction of the State, as such, has been highlighted. Neither any reasons have been given for obtaining certified copy nor has any explanation been given as to whether the

¶25

Department, as such, had got the copy and they were processing of the same. It is submitted that the respondent had already filed representations dated 06.09.2024 and 30.10.2024 for implementation of the judgment in question and also filed CWP No.12242 of 2024, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 29.10.2024 [Annexure R-1] with a direction to decide the aforesaid representations within a period of two weeks. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the same, Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, had also disposed of the said representations dated 06.09.2024 and 30.10.2024 on 18.11.2024 [Annexure R-2] and had come to the conclusion that six months had

¶26

2025:HHC:21272

¶27

¶28

already elapsed that legal opinion had not been received and, therefore, compliance of the orders be done. It is thus submitted that necessary revenue entries had already been made in favour of the respondent on 29.11.2024, vide Nakal Register Intkal No.126. The appeal was thus thereafter filed on 29.11.2024, as already noticed.

¶29

4. In such circumstances, Senior Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court passed in CMP(M) No.857 of 2023, titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Versus

¶30

Janak Raj & Anr., decided on 18.12.2023, Annexure R-8,

¶31

wherein, in similar circumstances for the same period, the application for condonation of delay of 212 days in filing the appeal, was dismissed.

¶32

5. We have gone through the said judgment. Issue before the Co-ordinate Bench was also identical that the judgment under challenge was rendered on 07.11.2022 and certified copy had not been applied till 23.05.2023 almost for six months and there was no explanation for this period, which led the Co-ordinate Bench to dismiss the application for condonation delay by placing reliance upon

¶33

the judgments of Apex Court in Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another,

¶34

2025:HHC:21272

¶35

¶36

(2012) 3 SCC 563; Commissioner of Customs Chennai vs. M/s Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 3 SCC 159; Pr. Commissioner Central Excise Delhi-1 vs. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 327; Union of India vs. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & others, (2021) 11 SCC 557; Union of India & others vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another , (2022) 9 SCC 263; and State of Uttar Pradesh & others vs. Sabha Narain & others, (2022) 9 SCC 266.

¶37

6. It is also noticed that respondent is now aged 64 years and it would not be in the interest of justice, at this stage, to compel him to contest the litigation. It is to be noticed that in the present case also, the landowner, as such, had been fighting for legal rights on the basis of sale deed dated 04.05.1962. The litigation is now being pursued by next generation as the initial proceedings were proceeded by Sudershan Bhatia, the mother of the respondent, who has now finally succeeded on account of the fact that the writ petition filed by the State, as such, had been dismissed in her favour and order of Financial Commissioner [Appeals], Shimla, dated 28.02.2020 was upheld.

¶38

2025:HHC:21272

¶39

¶40

7. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the State having slept-over the matter and no explanation had been given even for applying for certified copy after five months. In the meantime, representations having been filed on 06.09.2024 and 30.10.2024 which eventuality led to direction being passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, to implement the order, would go on to show that certain rights have

¶41

now accrued in favour of the respondent. In such circumstance, we do not find any plausible reasons to condone the delay, as no sufficient cause has been made out in the application for condonation of delay.

¶42

8. Resultantly, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed alongwith miscellaneous application(s),

¶43

if any.

¶44

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶45

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶46

[Bhardwaj/Chiranjeev]

¶47

July 03, 2025

State of Hp v. Rittu Bhalla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Rittu Bhalla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp and Others Vs Naresh Kumar and Others

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Narsingh Dev and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

State of Hp and Others Vs Ramesh Kumar and Others

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Ranjeet Singh and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Lachhi Ram