Dabe Ram. Vs. H.P. Tourism Development Corporation and anr.

Dabe Ram. vs H.P. Tourism Development Corporation and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Himachal Pradesh Decided Dec 27, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916704

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/916704
Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Judge: Kuldip Singh, J.
Decided On: Dec 27, 2010
Case Number: CWP(T)No.8840 of 2008.
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.] This writ petition is piled under article 226 op the constitution op India praying to quash the impugned order dtd 30.07.10 passed by the R1 vide annex-L in so far as the petitioner is concerned and direct the R1 to confine the impugned order only against the R4 and etc..

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition
Acts & sections: H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (Staff) Regulation, 1972/CCS (CCA) Rules - Rule 39

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dabe Ram.

Advocate Mr. Virender Rathore, Adv.

Respondent

H.P. Tourism Development Corporation and anr.

Advocate Mr. Parveen Kumar; Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (Staff) Regulation, 1972/CCS (CCA) Rules - Rule 39

Excerpt

[mr.justice huluvadi g.ramesh, j.] this writ petition is piled under article 226 op the constitution op india praying to quash the impugned order dtd 30.07.10 passed by the r1 vide annex-l in so far as the petitioner is concerned and direct the r1 to confine the impugned order only against the r4 and etc.......for quashing of memo dated 3.9.2002 annexure a-3. the perusal of annexure a-3 dated 3.9.2002 indicates that managing director had issued memo to petitioner for holding an inquiry under rule 39 of h.p. tourism development corporation ltd. (staff) regulation, 1972/ccs (cca) rules, 1965. the article of charges, statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of each article of charge, list of documents and list of witnesses are also enclosed with memo dated 3.9.2002. the petitioner was directed to file reply within ten days from the receipt of memorandum. 2. in the memo dated 3.9.2002, the managing director has specifically directed the petitioner to submit his reply. the petitioner whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? has not filed any reply to memo dated 3.9.2002. in absence of reply the competent authority could not consider the matter and take further step, more particularly when in the meantime the present petition was filed. 3. the petitioner has not filed the reply, therefore, next step whether to proceed in the matter on the basis of memo dated 3.9.2002 has not yet arrived. the decision to proceed in the matter will depend upon the decision of competent authority on the basis of the reply of petitioner to the memo dated 3.9.2002. 4. in these circumstances, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file reply to the memo dated 3.9.2002 within ten days from today and the competent authority shall consider the reply of the petitioner and pass appropriate order. 5. it is made clear that in case petitioner shall not submit the reply as indicated above in that case also the competent authority shall be competent to take decision for holding the inquiry and proceed further in accordance with law.6. the petitioner shall be at liberty to assail the order so taken by the competent authority in accordance with law. the petition stands disposed of on above terms.

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of memo dated 3.9.2002 Annexure A-3. The perusal of Annexure A-3 dated 3.9.2002 indicates that Managing Director had issued memo to petitioner for holding an inquiry under Rule 39 of H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (Staff) Regulation, 1972/CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The article of charges, statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of each article of charge, list of documents and list of witnesses are also enclosed with memo dated 3.9.2002. The petitioner was directed to file reply within ten days from the receipt of memorandum.

2. In the memo dated 3.9.2002, the Managing Director has specifically directed the petitioner to submit his reply. The petitioner Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? has not filed any reply to memo dated 3.9.2002. In absence of reply the competent authority could not consider the matter and take further step, more particularly when in the meantime the present petition was filed.

3. The petitioner has not filed the reply, therefore, next step whether to proceed in the matter on the basis of memo dated 3.9.2002 has not yet arrived. The decision to proceed in the matter will depend upon the decision of competent authority on the basis of the reply of petitioner to the memo dated 3.9.2002.

4. In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file reply to the memo dated 3.9.2002 within ten days from today and the competent authority shall consider the reply of the petitioner and pass appropriate order.

5. It is made clear that in case petitioner shall not submit the reply as indicated above in that case also the competent authority shall be competent to take decision for holding the inquiry and proceed further in accordance with law.

6. The petitioner shall be at liberty to assail the order so taken by the competent authority in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of on above terms.

Same Court & Year Himachal Pradesh · 2010 Same Parties Dabe Ram. vs H.P. Tourism Development Corporation and anr. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Kuldip Singh, J. Acts & Sections H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (Staff) Regulation,...

Land Acquisition