IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 721 of 2024 Decided on: 21.05.2025 ____________________________________________________ The State of H.P. ……….. petitioner Versus Saruchi Govt. Contractor and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents : Respondent No.1 is proceed against ex parte vide order dated 10.1.2025. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2024, whereby a right to file written statement on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.3 has been struck off. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner Perused the impugned order, pleadings and documents appended with the petition. 3. Vide order dated 6.3.2024, time was granted to the present petitioner/defendant No.3 to file written statement on 20.4.2024. On 20.4.2024, an application was filed seeking extension of time for filing written statement. Reply was solicited 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 in the said application and the matter was posted for 20.5.2024. Reply was received on 20.5.2024. The matter was then listed for consideration on 12.7.2024. On 12.7.2024, the consideration of the application seeking extension of time for filing written statement was deferred for 22.8.2024. On 22.8.2024 after hearing the parties, right for filing written statement was closed by the impugned order. 4. Appended alongwith the present petition at Annexure P-12 is a written statement which was to be filed on behalf of present petitioner/defendant No.3. The same had been prepared on 21.8.2024. Copy whereof has been duly attested by the concerned Oath Commissioner on 21.8.2024. While considering the present petition, one has to be conscious of the bureaucratic delays, impersonal nature of the governmental functioning, institutional interest and hence a justice oriented liberal approach has to be taken. 5. Since in the case at hand, a date prior to passing of the impugned order, the written statement was ready, therefore, rather than adjudicating the application filed on 20.4.2024 seeking extension of time, the written statement prepared on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.3 should have been taken on record. 6. In view of the aforesaid, impugned order dated 22.8.2024 is quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand dispose of. 3 7. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 29.5.2025, on which date, petitioner/defendant No.3 shall positively file written statement appended alongwith the present petition as Annexure P-12. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge May 21, 2025 tarun