IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9834 of 2008 Date of Decision : March 9, 2011 Tilak Raj Grover Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. R. S. Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Prior to the issuance of the impugned order dated 29.5.2003 (Annexure A-5) in terms of which recovery is sought to be affected from the petitioner, from the record it is evident that no notice was issued to the petitioner. Action for correction of the record may have been pursuant to the petitioner’s letter dated 22.11.1999 (Annexure R-3/2), but however before deciding the same respondents ought to have sought further explanation from the petitioner. Consequently on this short ground alone, impugned order is quashed. Liberty granted to the respondents to initiate fresh action against the petitioner, in accordance with law. Same Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 shall be done only after affording adequate opportunity of hearing/representation to the petitioner. 2. My attention has been invited to a decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 279 of 2002, titled as Gobind Singh versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 18.4.2007, copy of which is taken on record. The decision is not applicable in the instant case. Facts are clearly distinguishable. The impugned action was initiated by the respondents on the letter dated 22.11.1999 written by the petitioner himself. Consequently the ratio does not apply. 3. With the aforesaid directions the petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 9, 2011 (PK)