Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 933 (HP)

Sunil Kumar Garg v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-07-23

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs, on the grounds taken in the writ petition: “1. That the executive directions of the respondents whereby the buyers of the Evacuee land as per the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, have been held to be Non-Agriculturists for the purpose of Section 118 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 may be held illegal and in violation of Section 2(2) of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 2. That the show cause notice dated 1.7.2015, Annexure P-11, may be held illegal on the grounds mentioned in the CWP and quashed.” 2. The main grievance of the writ petitioners is that the respondents have made final decision in the impugned show cause notice. Thus, it is a final order. 3. It is a moot question-whether show cause notice can be questioned by the medium of the writ petition? 4. The petitioners have questioned the show cause notice (Annexure P-11), whereby they have been asked to show cause. They have not approached the authority concerned, had not put up their case before the said authority and have tried to give a slip to law, by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, by the medium of this writ petition, which is not permissible under law. 5. This Court in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case of which is CWP No. 3012 of 201 2015, titled as Micromax Informatics Ltd. Versus State of H.P & others, decided on 24.06.2015, has held that show cause notice cannot be questioned by the medium of a writ petition. It is apt to reproduce paras 21 to 23 of the aforesaid judgment herein:- “21. This Court has also held in CWP No. 1159 of 2014 2014-F titled Sandeep Sethi versus State of H.P. and others, that the show-cause notice cannot be questioned by the medium of the writ petition. The apex Court has also laid down the same principles of law in Union of India and Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana Satyanarayana, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 607 and Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another another, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 416. 22. The apex Court has also laid down the same principles of law in Union of India and Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana Satyanarayana, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 607 and Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another another, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 416. 22. While going through the writ petitions on hand, it appears that the petitioners have tried to give a slip to the law. The same issue has already been determined by this Court in M/s Technomac’s and M/s Samsung’s cases supra. 23. Having glance of the above discussion, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed in limine and the same are dismissed as such. However, the dismissal of these writ petitions shall not cause any prejudice to the writ petitioners to appear and file reply to the show-cause notice(s) before respondent No2 and take all the grounds, which have been taken in the writ petitions on hand.” 6. In the given circumstance, the writ petition is dismissed, with a liberty to the petitioners to show cause before the concerned Authority and in case the decision goes against them, they are at liberty to challenge the same within two weeks from today. Till then, the said order shall not be given effect to. 7. Pending applications stand disposed of.