Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/208/2019 on 30 December 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
COPC No. 208 of 2019
Decided on : 30.12.2019
Gandharv Singh
…Petitioner
Versus
Pradeep Thakur
…Respondent ___________________________________________
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate. Sureshwar Thakur, Judge
The operative portion of the order recorded by this Court, on 9.8.2019, upon civil writ petition No. 1803 of 2019, is, extracted hereinafter: “Being so, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider the revised plan submitted by the petitioner along with his application dated 26.4.2018, in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 15.5.2019, passed in CWPIL No. 8 of 2015.Annexure P-2 and also the affidavit filed by the Secretary, Town and
Country Planning to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the said CWPIL within four weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
2. A perusal thereof unfolds, vis-à-vis, it merely containing a direction becoming, pronounced, upon, the respondents, for considering, in accordance with law, the apposite building plans, submitted before the Municipal Corporation, Dharamshala. Furthermore, since, a perusal, of, the reply furnished today before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, discloses, that after the respondent hence making a thorough application of mind, vis-à-vis, the afore orders, pronounced, by this Court, it making a conclusion, vis-à- vis, the respondents, becoming constrained, not to grant, the, apposite sanction, as, there was no adequate proposal, submitted before the respondents, and, appertaining to the solid waste management. Consequently, the making, of, the afore order, obviously, does not, invite any contempt proceedings being initiated against the respondent, rather the petitioner herein, is directed, to adhere, to, the mandate of the Hon’ble NGT, wherethrough constructions proposed to be made within
Mcleodganj area, can become validly initiated, only, upon, adequate facilities, for the solid waste management, becoming executed.
3. Consequently, the contempt petition is disposed of. Notices are discharged. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge 3.9.2019 Kalpana