CWP/6381/2020 on 31 December 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.6381 of 2020

Decided on : 31.12.2020

Shiv Charan

…Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

…Respondents ___________________________________________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria and Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Dy. A.G., for the respondent- State.

(through video conferencing) Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral)

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he makes a challenge to the show cause notice, embodied in Annexure P-1, where through certain recoveries, enumerated therein, are strived to be made, against the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues, that the afore show cause notice, is, wanting, in, jurisdiction, as the District Panchayat Officer, does not, hold any empowerment to issue it. He further makes a submission that hence the writ petition, is, maintainable before this Court, as obviously, Annexure P-1, suffers from the completest lack of judicial empowerment, in the District Panchayat

Officer, hence to issue Ext. P-1. However, this Court is not impressed with the afore made submission, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as, a perusal, of, Annexure P-1, and Annexure P-2, reveals that the issuance of Annexure P-1, is a sequel, of, an order, made by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba. Furthermore, since it is also echoed in Annexure P-2, that the apposite order, as made by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, becomes challenged before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, and, further when order made, by the Deputy Commissioner, has become, stayed by the afore appellate authority, (a) thereupon, since the res-controversia, agitated before this Court, is, subjudice, before the Court, of, the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, (b) thereupon, the rights, if any, available to the writ petitioner, to cast any challenge, to the apposite recoveries, are not amenable, for, becoming recoursed before this Court.

2. In nutshell, the endeavor of the petitioner is completely pre-mature and, is, also, a mis-recoursed remedy, and, thereupon, the writ petition, is, dismissed, as not maintainable. However, the Court of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, as, hence seized of the apposite lis, is directed to make a prompt decision, thereon, and, if the decision, as, made by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, is, adversarial, to the writ petitioner, the latter is left at liberty to make a challenge thereagainst, before the competent Court of law. All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

(Sureshwar Thakur)

Judge

(Sandeep Sharma)

Judge December 31, 2020 Kalpana