RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 7.5.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan whereby the bonafide Himachali certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 8.5.1991 by the Executive Magistrate-cum-Naib Tehsildar, Ramshehar has been cancelled. THIS petition can be decided on a short question. As per

(2.) THE instructions issued by THE State of Himachal Pradesh from time to time bonafide Himachali is a person who has a permanent home in Himachal Pradesh, or has been residing in Himachal Pradesh for 15 years or having a permanent home in Himachal Pradesh lives outside THE State on account of his WheTHEr THE reporters of THE local papers may be allowed to see THE Judgment? Yes. occupation. The Tehsildar of THE area to which THE applicant belongs is entitled to grant such certificate. It is not disputed that such certificate was granted to THE petitioner on account of THE fact that his moTHEr Smt. Bachni Devi owned some land in Tehsil Ramshehar and after her death 5 biswas of land out of her share was mutated in favour of THE petitioner Ranjit Singh. This certificate was granted in THE year 1991 and THE petitioner THEreafter got employment as driver in THE HRTC some time in THE year 1991 itself. He admittedly has been working as driver in HRTC since THEn and by now has completed 15 years of service in Himachal Pradesh and THErefore as of today would be a bonafide Himachali. The question wheTHEr THE certificate was proper or not was

(3.) APPEAL is specifically created no APPEAL will lie. This is not to say that the administrative authorities cannot review their decision. It is not the case of the respondents that the bonafide certificate has been issued on account of furnishing false information by the applicant or some fraud played by him. Administrative authorities has a right to review their decisions, but in such an eventuality if the Tehsildar does not review its decision then the Government i.e. the Secretary concerned can reverse the decision. However the DeputyCommissioneris not vestedwithsuch appellate/revisional powers and therefore had no jurisdiction to pass such orders. In view of the above discussion without going into the merits of the case it is held that the order of the Deputy Commissioner being without jurisdiction is illegal and the same is quashed. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.