Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2319 (HP)

Court on its Own Motion v. Chief Secretary

2016-11-02

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. A letter was received by the Secretariat of the Chief Justice, suo motu cognizance was taken by this Court on 8th September, 2016, and Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, was requested to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae. 2. Respondents No. 4 and 5 have filed the reply. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of Annexure R4/H herein: “Item No. 54.23 Shifting of Corporate Office, HPPCL alongwith its allied offices from existing location to HIMFED Building at BCS, New Shimla. The Memorandum was discussed at length. The Director (Personnel) informed that presently, the offices of the Corporation at Shimla are housed in three/four buildings situated at different locations of the city. The access and approach to each other official hampers the working, while disposing off different issues particularly of urgent nature. Further, the congestion and traffic jams also add to poor efficiency. It was further explained that the accommodation presently occupied by the SJVNL at Himfed Building, Shimla is likely to be vacated by them after 68 months, which can be taken over by HPPCL on rent. The issue was discussed with the Himfed as well as with the SJVNL authorities. The SJVNL authorities have decided to shift the furniture lying in this building to their new office except fixed work stations and wood work etc. carried out by them. These work stations except a few, being in a dilapidated condition need replacement for which additional cost has to be borne by HPPCL. Further, appropriate cost of fixtures and other immovable fittings has to be negotiated with the SJVNL authorities. Various issues including concerns of the staff, data center, additions in the form of work stations and installation of elevator etc. by HPPCL in the existing Himfed Bhawan, on account of shifting of offices were also deliberated threadbare. Considering the proposal, the Board deemed it appropriate that to house the Corporate Office under one roof. The Board also debated that though the rent amount shall be more, shifting to Himfed Building shall infuse operational expediency in working apart from reducing maintenance/administrative expenditure and transactional cost. Accordingly, the Board agreed and approved the proposal. Considering the proposal, the Board deemed it appropriate that to house the Corporate Office under one roof. The Board also debated that though the rent amount shall be more, shifting to Himfed Building shall infuse operational expediency in working apart from reducing maintenance/administrative expenditure and transactional cost. Accordingly, the Board agreed and approved the proposal. It was, however, decided that a committee of the HPPCL officers be constituted to interact with SJVNL in order to assess the cost of the fixtures and fittings, which need to be retained by the HPPCL in case of taking possession of the premises. The Managing Director/Director (Personnel) HPPCL was authorised to take further necessary action in this regard.” 3. It appears that the Board of Directors has taken the decision. We are not expressing any opinion on the correctness of the said decision. We leave this question open. If any persons is/are aggrieved, can seek appropriate remedy. In case any officer is involved here and there, it is for the concerned authority to draw action, if required. 4. In view of the above, these proceedings are dropped. 5. We place on record our gratitude for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae.