LPA/195/2007 on 30 December 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

LPA No.195 of 2007

Decided on: December 30, 2015.

Union of India and others

……….Appellants.

versus

H.S. Anand and others

………..Respondent. ___________________________________________________________________

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellants: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr.Romesh Verma and Mr.V.S. Chauhan, Addl.A.Gs.

For the Respondents: Mr.G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Meera Devi, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. (Oral)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 14th June, 2007, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.847 of 2003, titled H.S. Anand and another vs. Union of India and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners, (respondents herein), came to be allowed, (for short, the impugned judgment).

2. It is argued by the learned Advocate General for the appellants/writ respondents that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned judgment only on the averments

…2…

contained in the writ petition and adequate opportunity of filing reply was not given to the writ respondents.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the writ record.

4. A perusal of the writ file shows that the writ petition was listed before the Court, for the first time, on 30th October, 2003, when it stood admitted. Thereafter, for the second time, the writ petition was listed before the Court on 26th April, 2007, on which date the following order was passed: “This petition was admitted on 30th October, 2003 but till date respondents have not chosen to file the reply. Hence the right to file the reply is closed.

Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.”

5. From the above, it is clear that the pleadings in the writ petition were not complete and the writ petition came to be decided on the basis of the averments contained in the writ petition. Thus, the impugned judgment, on the face of it, is not in accordance with law and merits to be set aside.

…3…

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners, during the course of hearing, stated that after the passing of the impugned judgment, the sale deed was executed by the writ respondents and the writ petitioners were put in possession, which statement is also fortified by the order, dated 14th December, 2010, passed by this Court in the instant Letters Patent Appeal, whereby the learned Advocate General was granted time to seek instructions, to that effect. Till today, the learned Advocate General has not sought instructions in terms of the order dated 14th December, 2010.

7. In view of the above discussion, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petition is remanded to the learned Single Judge for decision afresh.

8. The writ respondents are permitted to file reply to the writ petition within a period of six weeks from today, with advance copy to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, enabling the petitioners to file rejoinder thereto within four weeks thereafter.

…4…

9. In view of the subsequent developments which have crept-in after passing of the impugned judgment and order, the parties are directed to maintain status quo till the disposal of the writ petition and subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

10. The writ petition be listed before the learned Single Judge having the roster on 4th March, 2016.

11. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of accordingly, alongwith pending CMPs, if any.

Copy dasti.

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir)

Chief Justice.

December 30, 2015. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) (Tilak)

Judge