IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8647 of 2008. Decided on: 21.4.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Lal Chand … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7 (a) & (b):- “7 (a). That the respondents may be restrained from charging any penal rent from the applicant and any recovery made from the applicant of the penal rent be refunded to him alongwith interest. (b). That the respondents may be restrained from initiating any proceedings against the applicant under H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6 (iii):- “6 (iii). Contents of this para so far as they are matter of record are admitted. Rest of the contents of this para of the Original Application are wrong hence denied. As per Rules, the copy of which 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 has been annexed as Annexure P-1, the allotment of accommodation to the applicant was deemed to be cancelled on his relieving on 16.7.1998 consequent upon his transfer from Parwanoo to Solan. After this date, he could have retained the accommodation for a period of 3 months from the relevant date, as such, penal rent has been imposed and is being recovered from him as per the provisions of the Rules. The accommodation in question was vacated by the applicant only on 31.8.2000. From that date onwards no penal rent has been imposed upon the applicant. Rest of the contents of this para of the Original Application are wrong hence denied.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he may make a representation along with copy of this judgment to the respondents/competent authority within one month from today who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within next two months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 4. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. April 21, 2011. (cr)