RAJESH PATHANIA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for respondent No.3, in all fairness, submits that, no doubt, the said respondent had filed Civil Suit for injunction but the interim relief, granted in the said proceedings, was obviously subject to the outcome of the action to be taken by the Authorities under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Public Premises Act. If the said proceedings attain finality, the interim protection, granted by the Civil Court, will not continue to operate.

(2.) WE appreciate the fair stand taken by respondent No.3. As a result of this stand, respondent No.1 -State should not find impediment in proceeding against respondent No.3 merely because the appeal, filed by the State, against the interim order of the Civil Court, has been dismissed by the District Court, inasmuch as the ad -interim relief, granted by the Civil Court, will be worked out after the final decision in the appeal proceedings under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Public Premises Act.

(3.) COUNSEL for respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.3 has filed statutory appeal against the decision of the Authority under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Public Premises Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the returnable date in the said proceedings is 21st November, 2013. In terms of this order, the said returnable date shall stand superseded. Respondent No.3 shall appear before the appellate Authority on 29th October, 2013 whence the appellate Authority would be free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and ensure that the appeal is finally disposed of within two weeks from today. The State -Authorities shall proceed in the matter soon after the decision of the appellate -Authority, in accordance with law.