Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 833 (HP)

BHUSHAN KUMAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-09-23

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. THESE writ petitions take exception to the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Cooperative), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, dated 24th August, 2013 in Appeal No. Coop. E(1)7/2013. The petitioners had filed an application before the Registrar for issuing direction, which the Registrar accepted and passed certain orders thereon. However, the private respondents preferred appeal before the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which appeal has been decided by the Additional Chief Secretary vide impugned order. The Additional Chief Secretary, in our opinion, has analyzed the factual position and has rightly concluded that indulgence sought by the petitioners would result in issuing inconsistent and incongruous order with the interim order already operating between the parties passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4964 of 2011. We are in agreement with that opinion. 3. THE argument of the petitioners that the respondents are resorting to measures to defeat the interim order passed by this Court in CWP No.4964 of 2011, in our opinion, is ill-advised. The fact that the respondents intend to increase the number of trucks does not mean that they would get additional supply of goods to be transported than the one specified in the interim order passed by this Court. This Court has already clarified that the respondents would be entitled for 70% of the transportation work and the petitioners would get the balance 30% of the transportation work. 4. THE petitioners have relied on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 9th December, 2011. We fail to understand as to how that order reads differently or would enure to the benefit of the petitioners. Even this order is in consonance with the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Much emphasis was placed on the second last sentence in this order, which notes that the excess material shall be allowed to be carried by the petitioners before us without affecting the rights of the private respondents herein. This order cannot be construed differently than the interim arrangement already directed by the Division Bench in the main writ petition. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioners are ill-advised in resorting to multiplicity of proceedings. This order cannot be construed differently than the interim arrangement already directed by the Division Bench in the main writ petition. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioners are ill-advised in resorting to multiplicity of proceedings. It is indisputable that the petitioners had also made attempt to get the interim order, dated 1st July, 2011, modified and/or vacated, which application was rejected on 13th September, 2013 by us after hearing the parties. 5. THESE petitions are dismissed. 6. IF the petitioners resort to successive proceedings, the Court may be compelled to impose exemplary costs for resorting to frivolous and vexatious proceedings and even striking off the defence taken by them in the main proceedings. Request of the petitioners to expedite the hearing of the pending writ petition is also rejected, as that has already been considered in the order, dated 13th September, 2013. 7. WITH the dismissal of these petitions, all the pending application(s) also dismissed and the interim order(s) vacated.