Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/6381/2020 of SHIV CHARAN Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 31 December 2020
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
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.
Conclusion
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Shiv Charan
Versus
State of H.P. and others
…Petitioner
…Respondents
___________________________________________
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
________________________________________________
(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
December 31, 2020 Kalpana
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge