SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner is not seeking to challenge any order passed by the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal but is seeking directions qua the early disposal of the Original Application filed by him which, owing to the utter neglect on the part of the respondent is not making any headway despite its pendency for over two years. The petitioner's dismay is that despite its pendency for over two years, in the said Original Application the respondent has not been filing the reply even though opportunities have been given to it by the learned Tribunal on several occasions since April, 2004.

(2.) A perusal of the present Miscellaneous Petition and the Annexures filed therewith shows that the first order was passed in this Original Application on 28th April, 2004 by the Division Bench of the learned Tribunal directing the respondent State to file reply to the Original Application within six weeks. Thereafter various orders were passed by the Tribunal from time to time extending time for filing the reply by the respondent State. On 3rd May, 2006, the Tribunal passed the following order:

(3.) IN the aforesaid background the petitioner was constrained to file this petition in this Court on 20th June, 2006. Admittedly until then the reply had not been filed. Consequent upon the order passed by this Court yesterday, Shri Lalit Thakur, Under Secretary (PW), Government of Himachal Pradesh has filed his reply affidavit . In this reply affidavit the sequence of events as have been unfolded by the aforesaid deponent suggests an attempt by the aforesaid deponent to lead (or is it mislead) this Court into believing that it was for the first time that on 4 May, 2006, the Additional Advocate General informed the office of the Secretary (PW) that the aforesaid Original Application was pending and that reply was required to be filed in four weeks' time. Unfolding of the sequence of events has been narrated in para 3 (a) of the reply, relevant extract whereof reads thus: