IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 1 of 2007 Date of decision: 27.12.2011 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171002. …..Appellant Versus 1. Ramesh Chander Lodohia s/o Shri Salaig Ram Lodohia, Lecturer in Hindi, Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Sanskrit College Doghi, Distt. Una, H.P. 2. Kedar Dutt Purohit, s/o Shri Ghanshyam Purohit, Lecturer in Vykaran, Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Sanskrit College Doghi, Distt. Una, H.P. 3. Lal Singh Pathania, s/o Shri Ram Saran Pathania, Lecturer in Sahitya, Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Sanskrit College Doghi, Distt. Una, H.P. 4. Ravi Dutt Sharma, S/o Shri Jagat Ram Sharma, lecturer in Sahitya, Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Sanskrit College Doghi, Distt. Una, H.P. 5. Rajinder Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Hem Chand Sharma, Lecturer in Vyakaran, Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Sanskrit College Doghi, Distt. Una, H.P. 6. Makhan Lal Sharma, S/o Sohan Lal, Clerk, Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Sanskrit College Doghi, Distt. Una, H.P. 7. Subhash Chand, S/o Gangu Ram, Peon, Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Sanskrit College Doghi, Distt. Una, H.P. 8. Roshan Lal, S/o Narain Dass, Chowkidar, Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Sanskrit College Doghi, Distt. Una, H.P. 9. Sanatan Dharam Sabha through its President, Doghi, Tehsil Bangana, Distt. Una, H.P. 10. Managing Committee, Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Sanskrit College Doghi, Tehsil Bangana, Distt. Una(HP) through its President Shri Ranjit Singh, Ex. M.L.A. 2 11. Principal, Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Sanskrit College Doghi, Tehsil Bangana Distt. H.P. 12. Himachal Pradesh University, through its Registrar Summer Hill, Shimla- 171005. ….. Respondents Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of judicature at Lahore, applicable to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 8. Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate for respondents No. 10 and 11. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.12. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J(oral) 1. The present letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.10.2004, delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. It would be pertinent to mention that the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment disposed of two writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 789 of 1996, titled as Ramesh Chander Lodohia and others vs. State of H.P. and others & CWP No. 1575 of 1996 titled as Sanatan Dharam Sabha Dhogi vs. State of H.P. and others. 3 The present appeal i.e. LPA No. 1 of 2007 is directed against the judgment in CWP No. 789 of 1996. The State had also filed LPA No. 10 of 2005 against the same judgment arising out of CWP No. 1575 of 1996. The said appeal of the State was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court and the relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “The only ground taken by the State Government not to release the grant-in-aid to the respondent- Institution is financial crisis. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. Vs. H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools Managing Committees and others, (1995) 4 SCC 507 and on the basis of the judgment rendered in CWP No.1943 of 1996 titled Rajesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, has repelled this contention. We are in agreement with the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge. It is the duty cast upon the State to release the grant-in-aid so long as the provisions of H.P. Education Code are applicable and the State Government is precluded from either denying the grant-in-aid or showing its inability for such release. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is well reasoned. Accordingly, we see no merit in this Letter Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. The interim stay granted on 7.9.2005 and confirmed vide order dated 26.12.2005 is vacated. No costs.” 3. It appears that when the aforesaid LPA was decided, it was not brought to the notice of the said Division Bench that another LPA arising out of the same judgment is pending. 4 4. In view of the fact that the Division Bench has already upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the present LPA is also disposed of in the same terms. (Deepak Gupta) Judge December 27, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja) (vt) Judge