IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1663 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.6.2011 Thakur PG College of Education …Petitioner. Versus. Member Secretary and another … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. On 24.2.2011 the following orders was passed by this Court:- “The petitioner has produced before this Court the permission granted to it under Section 118 of the H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act whereby it was permitted to purchase the land, in question, for running a BPE/BP.Ed courses. Ms.Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall approach the Secretary, Revenue for enlargement of this permission to cover all educational institutions. The petitioner may file such an application before the Secretary, Revenue within one week from today who shall thereafter take a decision in this regard within three weeks. List on 29.3.2011. Dasti copy.” 2 2. On 29.3.2011 Ms. Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, made a statement in Court that in terms of order dated 24.2.2011 the petitioner had approached the Secretary on 11.3.2011. The matter was adjourned to 20.4.2011. 3. When the matter was listed on 20.4.2011, again a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that despite communication having been sent, the Secretary (Revenue) has not taken any decision. Therefore, this Court directed that the matter be listed on 27th April, 2011 and the learned Advocate General was directed to obtain instructions as to why no decision had been taken on the representation of the petitioner. On 27th April, 2011 the learned Deputy Advocate General placed before this Court a letter dated 26th April, 2011 which showed that no application had been filed by the petitioner on 21.3.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit alongwith the proof of filing of an application. It was also made clear that if no such application has been made as stated in the Court then the petition shall be rejected. On the next date an affidavit was filed and this Court passed the following order:- “It is apparent from the affidavit itself that no application has been properly addressed to the Secretary Revenue. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to submit an application to the Secretary Revenue within one week 3 from today, who shall take a decision within three weeks thereafter.” 4. Now, Ms. Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before me two letters dated 10.5.2011 and 19.5.2011 allegedly sent by the petitioner to the Secretary (Revenue). The address given is “Secretary (Revenue), H.P.Govt., Shimla”. Can it be expected that a letter addressed in such vague terms will ever be delivered. No address has been given. It is apparent that the petitioner is trying to waste the time of this Court. Another important factor is that in the second paragraph of the letter dated 10.5.2011 it is written as follows:- “In this regard we have made various representations to you but have received no reply from your office. Recently, the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.1663 of 2010 has passed an order on 24.2.2011 that you should grant permission to our society to run B.P.E., B.Ed courses and this permission be given for all courses.” 5. The order dated 24.2.2011 does not in any way indicate that any such order was passed by this Court. All that was ordered was that in case the petitioner approaches the Secretary (Revenue) for enlargement of permission to cover all educational institutions the Secretary (Revenue) would consider the same. The petitioner is guilty of misrepresenting the orders of this Court and in his letter indicated as if this Court has already 4 issued a direction for permission be granted in favour of the petitioner. For the last four months the petitioner has been asked to make a representation but previously also the petitioner’s representation was not properly addressed and now again it is not properly addressed. Furthermore, the petitioner has misstated and misquoted the orders of this Court. The Secretary(Revenue) has sent a letter to the office of the Advocate General stating that no application has been received. Obviously, no application can be received if it is addressed in such a vague address. No party can try to mislead the Court or can be permitted to take the Court for a ride. 6. Therefore, in view of the order dated 27.4.2011 the petition itself is dismissed. No order as to costs. 20th June, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.