RANJU Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the limited prayer that the petitioner has made is for issuance of direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, H.P. to decide Election Appeal No.1 of 2022, pending before the said authority within some reasonable time.

(2.) When the case was listed on 12/4/2023, dasti notices were ordered to be served upon learned counsel for the private respondent. Though, the dasti notice stated to have been inadvertently issued to learned counsel representing respondent No.3 before respondent No.2, through respondent No.2, however, Mr. Yudhbir Thakur, learned counsel informed the Court that learned counsel representing respondent No.3 before learned Deputy Commissioner was informed about the issuance of the said notice, but he has refused to accept the same. He further stated that through WhatsApp, the factum of dasti notice having been issued to respondent No.3 for today, was brought to the notice of said respondent also by WhatsApp message.

(3.) Be that as it may, taking into consideration the innocuous prayer that has been made by way of this petition and further taking into consideration the fact that next date fixed by the authority concerned for the hearing of the appeal is 17/4/2023, it is ordered that an endeavour will be made by the authority concerned to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in case the authority is not in a position to dispose of the appeal on the next date of hearing, i.e. 17/4/2023, then the next date will definitely be given within 30 days as from 17/4/2023 and the appeal shall be decided within the said period by passing a speaking order.