Rajiv Bakshi Vs the State of Hp and Others

¶1

2025:HHC:20746

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 7515 of 2025 Decided on : 01.07.2025

¶4

Rajiv Bakshi. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

¶5

…Petitioner Versus …Respondents

¶6

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner :	Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Advo (through V.C.), with Mr. Guri Singh Parmar, Advocate.	cate nder
For the respondents :	Mr. Rahul Thakur, De	puty
	Advocate General, respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advo with Mr. Aman Hansr	for cate, etta,
	Advocate, for respondent No.4	.
	Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate, respondent No.5. Mr. Deven Krishan Kha	for nna,
	Advocate, for respondent No.1 M/s Karun Negi and Som	6. esh
	Sharma, Advocates, respondents No.45 & 46.	for

¶8

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶9

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter

¶10

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

¶11

2

¶12

2025:HHC:20746

¶13

alia, prayed for the following relief:-

¶14

“That the operation and implementation of

¶15

impugned order dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned SubDivisional Collector, Kasauli be stayed till the filing and adjudication of revision petition before learned Financial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh and further staying and setting aside proceeding of warrant of possession scheduled for 05.05.2025 in the best interest of justice so that the petitioner be not disposed from his ancestral land.”

¶16

When this case was listed on 05.05.2025, the

¶17

following order was passed:-

¶18

“CWP No.7515 of 2025

¶19

Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3-State. Issue notice to the private respondents, returnable for 28.06.2025, on steps for service being taken within one week. Reply by respondents No.1 to 3 be filed in the meanwhile.

¶20

CMP No.9696 of 2025

¶21

Notice in above terms. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the documents appended with the petition. He submits that an instrument of partition was prepared in terms of Annexure P-1. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had

¶22

3

¶23

2025:HHC:20746

¶24

preferred an appeal in terms of Annexure P-2 and vide Annexure P-3, dated 25.04.2025, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel by referring to the order dated 25.04.2025, submitted that copy of the same was made available to the petitioner only on 02.05.2025 and though, it was mentioned in the order that detailed order shall be issued separately, but till date the detailed order, in terms whereof, the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected, has not seen the light of the day. Learned counsel submitted that in the absence of the grounds of rejection being available with the petitioner, he is not in a position to avail his further statutory remedies, because there is nothing with him as of today so as to assail by way of an appeal. Learned counsel further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in umpteen number of judgments has been pleased to hold that any order including orders that may be administrative or Quassi Judicial, if the same have any civil consequence as far as a person is concerned, then reasoning is the soul of the order and in the absence of any reasoning being out in public till date, the petitioner has no remedy, but to invoke the extra writ jurisdiction of this Court in the interregnum, so that his interest can be protected. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner be protected in the

¶25

4

¶26

2025:HHC:20746

¶27

interregnum as he is facing a warrant of possession which has again been issued in a hot haste manner on 01.05.2025 itself for 05.05.2025, which was served upon the petitioner only on 02.05.2025.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as this Court is of the considered view that there is a prima facie case made out by the petitioner, because obviously in the absence of the detailed order of rejection of appeal being with the petitioner, he is not in a position to assail the same. Further, this Court fails to understand that till the time the detailed order is not out, what is the hot haste that prompted the Revenue Officer to issue order of attachment in terms of Annexure P-2. Therefore, till further orders, Annexure P-4, dated 01.05.2025 is hereby stayed and it is ordered that the warrant of attachment shall not be executed without the leave of the Court. Learned Additional Advocate General has noted down the gist of the order passed by the Court today and he assured the Court that the same will be communicated to the Revenue Authorities forthwith.”

¶29

Thereafter, when the matter was taken up by the Court on 28.06.2025, the following order was passed:-

¶30

“Mr. Aman Hansretta, Mr. Deven Khanna and Mr. Karun Negi, learned counsel, have put in appearance on

¶31

5

¶32

2025:HHC:20746

¶33

behalf of respondents No.4 and 16 and 45, 46, respectively. On the instructions of Mr. Aman Hansretta, learned counsel, Mr. Suneet Goel, learned Senior Counsel, has also put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶34

Learned Senior Counsel along-with other learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, submit that as the primary grievance of the petitioner was that the certified copy of the order passed in the Appeal, was not made available to him, yet coercive actions were being taken against the petitioner, now, in the light of the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the certified copy thereof and he has already preferred a Revision Petition before the learned Financial Commissioner, this petition has lost its efficacy.

¶35

List on 01.07.2025, on which date the contention of the respondents shall be considered. ”

¶36

Today, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4 and learned counsel for the remaining respondents.

¶37

The Court stands apprised that the revision that has been preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by

¶38

6

¶39

2025:HHC:20746

¶40

the Collector, Sub-Division Kasauli, is listed before the learned Divisional Authority on 15.07.2025 and certified copy of the order passed by the Collector is also on record before the said Authority.

¶41

In the light of this fact and taking into consideration the situation faced with which the petitioner had approached this Court, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the interim protection that has been granted by the Court to the petitioner shall continue up to 15.07.2025 or such date, by which the interim application filed by the petitioner is decided by the learned Financial Commissioner on merit.

¶42

It is clarified that all endeavour shall be made by the

¶43

learned Financial Commissioner to decide both the revision petition as well as the application filed praying for interim relief, as expeditiously as possible, of course in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in either of the orders passed by it.

¶44

With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶45

7

¶46

2025:HHC:20746

¶47

At this stage, Mr. Arjun Lall, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that though he had assisted the Court on the last date of hearing, yet inadvertently his presence has not been marked in the order. Registry is directed to reflect the presence of Mr. Arjun Lall, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in order dated 28.06.2025 and

¶48

after carrying out the necessary correction, a fresh order be

¶49

uploaded on the website.

¶50

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶51

July 01, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)

Rajiv Bakshi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Bakshi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Chand Jaswal Vs State of Hp and Others

Roshan Lal Vs Union of India and Others

Biogenetic Drugs (P) Ltd. and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Sharwan Kumar Vs the Ministry of Road and Highways and Others

Roop Chand and Others Vs State of Hp and Others