VISHAL SOOD Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition can be disposed of on a very short ground. Admittedly, the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, had executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioner, with respect to the disputed property, which was initially leased out to Sh. Sansar Chand, grand father of the petitioner and father of respondent No.3 Vijay Kumar Sood. Respondent No.3 filed an application before the Secretary (Urban Development) Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, in which specific challenge was laid to the grant of lease in favour of the petitioner Vishal Sood. The Secretary treated his application, as a petition, under Section 403 of the H P Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and allowed the same. No notice of the said petition was given to the present petitioner. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application, for recalling of the orders, on the ground that adverse orders had been passed against him without giving him an opportunity of being heard. This application was disposed of vide order dated 25th February, 2003 which reads thus:

(2.) IN our opinion, the Secretary (Urban Development) has gravely erred in deciding the original revision petition, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the respective contentions and rights of the parties. The rights of the parties have to be determined by the Secretary (Urban Development) in the proceedings before him.

(3.) INTERIM order shall continue till disposal of the revision petition. All the other pending applications shall stand disposed of. Copy Dasti.