ANITA DEVI Vs. MANDIR THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When these cases were taken up for consideration, Mr. G. D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for a set of petitioners, submits that the petitioners have already approached the appropriate Government with representations, wherein a prayer has been made that rather than evicting the petitioners and similarly situated persons, it will be in the interest of parties in case the premises presently in possession of the petitioners and similarly situated persons are leased out to them. Mr. Verma further submits that on the representations so made, the Deputy Commissioner has already made positive recommendations in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment favour of the petitioners and similarly situated persons to the Divisional Commissioner concerned vide communication dtd. 4/8/2017 and thereafter, matter stands recommended by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division also to the Principal Secretary (LAC), Government of Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 23 rd August, 2017. In this background, Mr. Verma submits that it will be in the interest of justice in case these petitions are disposed of at this stage with the direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representations made by the petitioners and similarly situated persons within some time bound period and till then status quo be ordered to be maintained. Other learned counsel for the petitioners have also made same prayer.

(2.) Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Mandir Thakur Dwara Dei Ji Sahiba submits that the said respondent is not averse to the request so made on behalf of the petitioners. Same is the stand taken by the State also.

(3.) Accordingly, without adjudicating on merit, as prayed for, all these petitions are disposed of with the direction that the State Government shall pass appropriate orders on the recommendations, which so stand made to it by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division vide communication dated 23 rd August, 2017. Needful shall positively be done within a period of four months from today, with liberty to the State to seek extension of time, if so required. Interim protection granted in favour of the petitioners by this Court shall continue till decision is taken by the State Government.