RAJESH THAKUR AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/7107/2025 · 2025-05-01
Ajay Mohan Goel
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10492 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10492 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:11835 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 7107 of 2025 Decided on : 01.05.2025 Shri Rajesh Thakur and another. …Petitioners Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the action that has been initiated against him in terms of the impugned orders, under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Rule Infrastructure Protection Act, 2002 and Rules framed therein. Action stands taken against the petitioners purportedly on the ground that they have violated the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. In the light of the fact that there is an appellate remedy available to the petitioner in terms of the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 2025:HHC:11835 provisions of the said Act, by passing the said statutory remedy and filing of this writ petition, is not appreciated by the Court.
2. Though learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order in issue is per se bad because the State itself is not clear about the status of the land, however, this Court is of the considered view that all these issues can be raised before the Appellate Authority, which incidentally will also be an Authority, which can appreciate facts better than this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Accordingly, in the light of the above observations, this petition is allowed to be withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy. The time that has been spent by the petitioners while pursuing their remedy before this Court, shall be excluded while calculating the limitation. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
May 01, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)