Sudarshan Jaspa Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sudarshan Jaspa Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the appellate authority (respondent No. 1) to decide Appeal No. 16 of 24 titled 'Sudarshan Jaspa Vs. DRCS Mandi' expeditiously, preferably on or before 28.02.2025, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the stake holders and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate authority (respondent No. 1) should be directed to decide Appeal No. 16 of 24 titled 'Sudarshan Jaspa Vs. DRCS Mandi' expeditiously. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court, without going into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority (respondent No. 1) to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably on or before 28.02.2025.

Ratio / Principle

While deciding the appeal, the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the stake holders and pass a speaking order thereafter.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if he still remains aggrieved.ratio¶10
The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that delay in disposal of the appeal, if permitted, would render the appeal infructuous and cause the work of the society to suffer.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral order) disposed of CWP No.583 of 2025 (Sudarshan Jaspa v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.). The petitioner's Appeal No. 16 of 24 titled 'Sudarshan Jaspa Vs. DRCS Mandi', filed on 23.12.2024, was pending before respondent No. 1 (the appellate authority), and his prayer for stay of the order challenged in the appeal had been rejected. Counsel stated the petitioner would be content with a direction for expeditious disposal of the appeal. The Court, without going into the merits, held that delay could render the appeal infructuous and affect the work of the society, and accordingly directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal, preferably on or before 28.02.2025, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the stake holders and passing a speaking order; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved. No statute or precedent was cited and no monetary amount was involved.

2025:HHC:1674

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.583 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.01.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Sudarshan Jaspa ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to appellate authority i.e. respondent No. 1 to decide the appeal No. 16 of 24 titled Sudarshan Jaspa Vs. DRCS Mandi expeditiously.

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that since the appeal has been filed on 23.12.2024, as such, there is no justification to issue direction to afore authority to decide the appeal expeditiously. However, learned Additional Advocate was unable to dispute that prayer made on behalf of petitioner for staying the operation of order laid challenge in the appeal, came to be rejected. If

2

it is so, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that delay in disposal of appeal, if permitted would render the appeal infructuous and work of the society will also suffer.

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to appellate authority, as detailed hereinabove, to decide the appeal, expeditiously, preferably on or before 28.02.2025. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as stake holders and pass speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

January 08, 2025 (sunil)