2025:HHC:20920 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1417 of 2024 Decided on: 02.07.2025 Jeevanyoga Foundation … Petitioner Versus Union of India & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government Counsel, for respondents No.1 and 4. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 and 3-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the Award dated 24.01.2023 at Annexure P-12 may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That Respondents may be directed to pay compensation as per the provisions of Works of Defence Act, 1903. (iii) In the light of above submissions, it is humbly prayed that a similar Award as of in the case of titled as “Whispering Pines Resorts Ltd. Versus UOI and Ors.” dated 23.10.2017 may be passed in favour of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:20920 petitioner. iv) Cost of this petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner” 2. During the course of hearing of this petition, one of the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner while assailing the impugned order was that though the presence of learned counsel for the petitioner was recorded in the order, but learned counsel was neither aware of the listing of the case, nor he appeared before the appropriate Authority Offline or Online, nor was he heard before the order passed. 3. Record of the Court demonstrates that Ms. Upasna Sharma, Squadron Leader, also filed an affidavit stating therein that on 24.01.2023, she was not present in the Court of learned Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. and as already observed hereinabove, same was the stand of Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, learned counsel also, appearing for the petitioner, who reiterated that he was not present in either mode, nor he was heard before learned Authority concerned. 4. In the backdrop of this issue, this Court had directed the concerned to file their respective affidavits to ascertain as to what actually transpired on the date concerned when the impugned order was passed. 3 2025:HHC:20920 5. Learned Additional Advocate General today referred to the affidavit filed by Shri Jagan Thakur, presently working as Additional Director, Urban Development, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who at the relevant time was serving as Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. and has submitted that a perusal thereof would demonstrate that the said Officer has candidly stated that it is a possibility that the presence of learned counsel/ parties in the order was marked in the light of the previous appearance of learned counsel and parties and the Officer has further tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology for the inconvenience so caused. 6. In the light of this development, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice in case quietus is put to this litigation by setting aside order dated 24.01.2023 (Annexure P-12), with a further direction to the Authority concerned to decide the case afresh by hearing the parties. Ordered accordingly. 7. The parties shall appear through Counsel before the Officer concerned firstly on 15.07.2025 and thereafter, a date will be fixed by present Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dalhousie, 4 2025:HHC:20920 District Chamba, H.P. for the hearing of the parties and an endeavour be made to finally decide the matter on or before 31.08.2025. 8. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 02, 2025 (Rishi)