Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/472/2017 of PARESH SHARMA Vs STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER on 31 December 2018
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 472 of 2017 Date of Decision: 31.12.2018 _____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Paresh Sharma …..Petitioner. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another …..Respondents. Coram: The 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 472 of 2017
Date of Decision: 31.12.2018
_____________________________________________________________________Sh. Paresh Sharma…..Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and another
…..Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?[1]
For petitioner:Mr. B.C. Negi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate.
For respondents:Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate Generalwith M/s. Ranjan Sharma and Adarsh K. Sharma, Additional Advocate Generals.
Surya Kant, Chief Justice(Oral):
Notification dated 3[rd] March, 2017 purportedly issued inexercise of the Executive Powers conferred under Article 154(1) of theConstitution of India notifying “Dharamshala, District Kangra”, as“Second Capital of the State of Himachal Pradesh”, is under challenge onvarious grounds in this writ petition filed in public interest.
2. Though the State of Himachal Pradesh has filed the writtenstatement justifying the impugned Notification but fact of the matter isthat the same has not been given effect so far. It thus appears that a 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
fresh thought process is going on in the mind of the State Government,due to which the matter has been got adjourned from time to time.3.As far as Article 154(1) of the Constitution of India isconcerned, Sub Article (1) says that the Executive Powers of the Stateshall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him eitherdirectly or through Officers subordinate to him, in accordance with thisConstitution. The decision taken under Sub Article (1) of Article 154 thuscan always be reviewed, recalled, revisited by the competent authority.
4. We are thus of the view that instead of keeping the mattersub-judice before this Court due to which the State Government might bereluctant to revisit the whole issue, let this writ petition be disposed ofwith liberty to the respondents to take an appropriate decision afresh, asmay be deemed appropriate in public interest and till such time theimpugned Notification, which is yet to be given effect, be kept inabeyance. Ordered accordingly. In the event of any fresh decision, if thepetitioner is still aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to approach the Courtagain.
The writ petition stands disposed of in terms terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Surya Kant) Chief Justice
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge