CWP No. 53 of 2008 with CWP No. 54 of 2008 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India and Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Dilip Sharma vice counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India in sequel to order dated 5.12.2008. Mr. Sandeep Sharma prays for six months’ time to do the needful since the statute had to be placed before both the Houses of the Parliament. The Court is of the considered opinion that the needful can be done within four months. The Union of India is directed to complete the process of finalization of statute including its publication within four months. List after four months. Copy ‘Dasti’. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) CWP No. 1857 of 2007 with CWP No. 1859 of 2007 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for the respondents. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has brought to the notice of the Court letter dated 20.12.2008. It is evident from a bare perusal of letter dated 20.12.2008 that the widows are being given preference. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the appointments on compassionate basis are to be made on the basis of seniority. The State cannot change the rules of the game mid way by giving out- of-turn preference to the widows. It is true that widows deserve sympathy, however, the other categories of persons who are in the queue cannot be left in lurch. In view of these observations, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General may seek instructions why the appointments by way of compassionate appointments are not being made as per the seniority maintained for all the categories. He may do so before the next date of hearing. List on January 7, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) CWP No. 1179 of 2007 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for the respondents. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General prays for and is allowed two weeks’ time to file the reply. List on January 9, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) RSA No. 108 of 1999 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate for the respondent. In sequel to order dated 27.11.2008, Shri Anil Jaswal, Local Commissioner has filed comprehensive report. The Registry is directed to supply the copies of the report to the learned counsel for the parties within three days. It is open to the learned counsel for the parties to file objections to the report. List on January 9, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) RSA No. 354 of 1998 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. P.C. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate for the respondent. Dismissed in today’s date. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) RSA No. 66 of 1999 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Vinay Thakur submits at the Bar that the decree pursuant to the trial Court judgment dated 29.9.1994 has been executed during the pendency of this regular second appeal. Consequently, the regular second appeal has become infructuous and the same is dismissed having become infructuous. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) CWP (T) No. 2629 of 2008 24.12.2008 Present: Mr.S.S. Sood vice counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for the respondents. The State is directed to take final decision on the basis of Annexure A-13 dated 27.5.2002 within a period of four weeks from today. The decision shall be placed on record by way of an affidavit. List thereafter. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) CWP (T) No. 2547 of 2008 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Vinod Thakur submits that grievance of the petitioners has been redressed after introduction of the Assured Career Progression Scheme. He has assured the Court that the scheme is being implemented qua the petitioners and if they have not been granted higher pay scale after putting in requisite number of years, the same will be done within a period of eight weeks. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) CWP (T) No. 2556 of 2008 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Vinod Thakur submits that grievance of the petitioners has been redressed in the meeting of the Executive Council held on 20.12.2008. In view of this, the writ petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed having become infructuous. However, by way of abandoned precaution, the respondent-University is directed to implement the decision dated 20.12.2008 within a period of six weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) CWP No. 702 of 2007 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Charu Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4. A challenge has been laid by way of this petition to order dated 16.3.2007. Mr. Ramakant Sharma has drawn the attention of the Court to two letters dated 9.1.2007 and 7.2.2007 whereby the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nurpur was directed to hold an inquiry and thereafter, make recommendations to the Deputy Commissioner. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nurpur instead of holding any inquiry forwarded the recommendations of the Tehsildar made in the year 2006. The Sub Divisional Magistrate once directed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra to hold an inquiry, the same was to be conducted by him. Consequently, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nurpur is directed to do the needful as directed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra vide letters dated 9.1.2007 and 7.2.2007 within a period of four weeks. The Deputy Commissioner, Kangra thereafter shall pass a speaking order after taking into consideration the report furnished by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nurpur. In view of today’s order, the order earlier passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 16.3.2007 is quashed and set aside. The arrangements made on the basis of various orders passed by this Court shall continue in the interregnum. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) RSA No. 124 of 1998 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondents. At the request of Mr. Arun Kumar, list after two weeks to enable him to file power of attorney on behalf of the appellant. In case the power of attorney is not filed, appropriate orders will be passed on the next date of hearing. List on January 7, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) RSA No. 330 of 1998 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Romesh Verma submits at the Bar that he may be permitted to move an appropriate application for determination of power of attorney. He may do so within two weeks. Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj also submits that he may be permitted to file power of attorney on behalf of the respondents after the designation of Mr. R.K. Gautam as Senior Advocate. The needful be done within two weeks. List thereafter. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) COPC No. 65 of 2008 24.12.2008 Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate for the respondent. List next week. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) CMPMO No. 24 of 2007 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Heard. Reserved. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) Ex. Petition No. 2 of 2007 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate for the Decree Holder. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal vice counsel for the Judgment Debtor. CMP No. 659 of 2008: Notice. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal waives service of notice on behalf of the Judgment Debtor. He prays for and is allowed a week’s time to file the reply. List on 6.1.2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) CWP No. 843 of 2006 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. Mohinder Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 2 to 4. CMP NO. 4045 of 2008: The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has assured that the judgment rendered by this Court on 7.5.2008 is being implemented. However, he prays for and is allowed six weeks further time to do so. Consequently, the application is disposed of. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) CWP No. 639 of 2005 with CWP No. 755 of 2008. 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. R.K. Gautam prays for and is allowed two weeks’ time to file the reply. List after two weeks. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. ` (cr) CMPMO No. 814 of 2008 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard. The prayer of the petitioner herein is that pending Original Application No. 1602 of 2008, titled O.P. Sawhney Vs. HPSEB be summoned to this Court. The matter is no longer res-integra but is covered by the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Service Bar Association Versus Union of India & Others, 205 (1) Madras Law Journal 402. The Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “We hence hold that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is wide enough to confer power to the High Court to transfer a case from a subordinate Court or a Tribunal to the High Court itself in certain exceptional/special situations if the interest of justice so warrants as is the case here.” A direction is issued to the Registrar General to send for the records of the case immediately to this Court. This order shall be punctually obeyed. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) CWP No. 331 of 2006 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. A short point involved in this petition is whether the petitioner has a passage leading to his fields after the completion of consolidation proceedings. This issue can be effectively resolved if the Local Commissioner is appointed to ascertain the exact position existing on the spot, more particularly, with reference to Khasra No. 1487/1488. Accordingly, Tehsildar, Amb is directed to visit the spot after informing the parties and carry out necessary inquiries and if need be, demarcation can be carried out to ascertain whether the petitioner has any passage or not. The Tehsildar, Amb is directed to visit the spot on January 6, 2009. He shall file the report in the Registry on or before January 9, 2009. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General will inform the Tehsildar, Amb of this order. Copy be supplied to the learned Senior Additional Advocate General duly certified by the Secretary of the Court during the course of the day. List on 9.1.2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1355 of 2008 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Mr. Ramakant Sharma Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for the respondent. The accused is present in person. Mr. R.K. Sharma prays for and is allowed seven days’ time to produce the record. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration that the State has to produce the record for perusal of the Court, the police is directed not to arrest the petitioner till the next date of hearing. List on 31.12.2008. Copy ‘Dasti’. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1321 of 2008 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. A. Kochhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for the respondent. Mr. A. Kochhar after arguing the matter for a while prays for and is allowed to withdraw the petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move an application in the second week of March, 2008. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr) Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1318 of 2008 24.12.2008 Present: Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for the respondent. It is submitted by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General on the basis of instructions imparted to him by S.I. Shri Rattan Lal that custody of the petitioner is not required in the present case. Consequently, the application is allowed on the same terms and conditions as contained in the previous order dated 19.12.2008. Mr. G.D. Sharma submits that his client and Ms. Reena Kumari are present in person. He further submits that Ms. Reena Kumari has given statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that she has married the petitioner due to her own volition. He lastly contended that the members of the family of Ms. Reena Kumari along with certain residents of the area are against the inter-caste marriage and he apprehends that the petitioner and his wife can be harmed physically. Accordingly, the Senior Superintendents of Police, Shimla and Solan are directed to ensure that the petitioner and his wife Ms. Reena Kumari are escorted to the place of their choice by providing a sufficient number of police force. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Solan is further directed to ensure that no physical harm is caused to the petitioner or his wife. Copy ‘Dasti’. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 24, 2008. (cr)