Nand Lal Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CWPOA No. 1043 of 2019 20.11.2025 Present : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. CMP-T No. 447 of 2025 By way of this application, the applicants/respondents have prayed for recalling of order dated 27.06.2025 and to allow them an opportunity to file reply. On 27.06.2025, this Court had passed the following order:- “Reply not filed. More time sought to file reply, however, on 05.06.2025, it was ordered that in case the reply was not filed within two weeks by the respondents, their defence shall stand closed automatically. Hence, no further opportunity can be granted and in terms of order dated 05.06.2025, the defence of the respondents already stood closed on their failure to comply with the order.” The recalling of the aforesaid order has been sought by the applicants/respondents on the ground that, in the petition, the petitioner had wrongly impleaded the Irrigation and Public Health Department as party/respondents, whereas his claim is against the Department of Public Works. As per the applicants/respondents, the said defect was noticed only during the hearing on 24.04.2025, and thereafter, time was granted for filing the reply. The Office of the learned Advocate General communicated this fact to the Office of the Secretary, H.P.P.W.D., on 22.05.2025. The matter was then processed for filing the reply. Since old records were required to be verified, the reply could not be filed within the time granted by this Court, and in this backdrop, the defence of the applicants/respondents was struck off on 27.06.2025. The non-applicant/petitioner has filed a reply to the application. Having perused the records, I do not find the plea raised by the applicants/respondents to be factually correct or bona fide. The record reveals that the Secretary, H.P.P.W.D., and the Engineer-in-Chief, P.W.D., were impleaded as respondents by correcting the memo of parties by the non-applicant/petitioner way back in the year 2017, when the proceedings of the instant matter were pending before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal. Thus, to say that the aforesaid discrepancy was noticed by the applicants/respondents only on 24.04.2025 is factually incorrect. Even after 24.04.2025, the applicants/respondents had availed sufficient opportunities, and when the reply was not filed till 27.06.2025, this Court passed an order as noticed above. No case for recalling the order dated 27.06.2025 is made out. The application stands disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 20th November, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)