IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 341 of 2011 Date of decision: 20.9.2011 Rajesh Kumar Uppal ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents-State.: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. _____________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15th March, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur whereby he dismissed the petition of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) and upheld the order of the learned trial Court refusing to grant any stay in favour of the petitioner. 2. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff is running a STD booth at bus stand Ghumarwin. This STD booth was being run on a space measuring 6x8 feet. The plaintiff thereafter approached the Chief Executive Officer, Bus stand Management and Development Authority to grant him more space measuring 24 square feet and on 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 22.7.2008 a license deed was entered into between the parties. It is not disputed that in terms of the license deed the applicant had also paid the license fee. The plaintiff filed a suit that he apprehended that the respondents would cancel his license for the 24 extra sq. feet. In the written statement filed by the defendants it was stated that the license in respect of 24 sq.feet was granted to the plaintiff but the same was cancelled vide letter dated 14.7.2008, before the suit had been filed. According to the respondents this was done because there were complaints by the public that by granting extra space to the plaintiff inconvenience was being caused to the passengers and therefore, it was decided to cancel the allotment of the extra space granted to him. 3. At this stage, this Court is not going into the merits of the rival contention of the parties but both the Courts below have held that in view of the fact that the license had been cancelled prior to the filing of the suit and that the plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands in as much as he has not mentioned that the license has already been cancelled, he was not entitled to any relief. 4. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only errors of jurisdiction can be corrected. There is no error of jurisdiction in the orders of the Courts below, therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. 3 5. It is, however, made clear that any observation made by the trial Court, the learned Appellate Court or this Court will have no bearing on the decision of the main case and that the observation made are only for the purpose of deciding this application and shall not bind the Court which decides the suit finally. Keeping in view the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2008 the learned trial Court is directed to make an effort to dispose of the case as early as possible and not later than 31st December, 2011. No costs. 20th September, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.