Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 20 To March 26, 2023

Nominal Index

State of HP Vs Kansi Ram 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 17

Anil Kumar Vs State of HP 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 18

Rattan Chand Vs Madhu Bharat Chadha & another 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 19

Rajesh Kumar & Ors Vs State of H. P. & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 20

Ganga Ram v. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 21

Judgements/Orders

Some Leeway To Condone Delay In Cases Of Govt Cannot Be Construed As Absolute License To Flout Law: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: State of HP Vs Kansi Ram

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 17

Dismissing an application seeking condonation of delay filed by the Himachal Pradesh government, the High Court on Friday observed that the law has equal balance for all and though some leeway is permissible in the case of government but that cannot be construed as an absolute license to flout the law at whims.

Highlighting the rigors of Limitation Act that apply equally to all including the Government, Justice Vaidya observed that the sufficiency of a cause for condonation of delay can be assessed keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Applicants have not been able to assign any reasons whatsoever for delay in filing the appeal specially after the certified copy of the award was obtained and undue laxity of government officials needs strongest deprecation, the court underscored.

Drug Menace A Serious Invasion Into Social Structure, Even Adolescents Not Spared: Himachal Pradesh High

Case Title: Anil Kumar Vs State of HP

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 18

Dismissing an application for pre arrest bail in an FIR for offences under the NDPS Act the Himachal Pradesh High High Court observed that the drug menace is a serious invasion in the social structure that needs to be curbed with heavy hands and for such purpose, police must have the proper access to the accused which may be by way of custodial interrogation in appropriate cases.

If Building Has Potential To Fetch Higher Revenue Post Reconstruction, Proving 'Dilapidated Condition' For Evicting Tenant Not Necessary: HP High Court

Case Title: Rattan Chand Vs Madhu Bharat Chadha & another.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 19

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that when a building is situated in a commercial location having possible potential to fetch higher income after reconstruction/rebuilding, tenants may be evicted for such bonafide requirement of the landlord and the requirement of demonstrating the dilapidated condition of the building for enforcing eviction is not necessary in such cases.

Water Property Of State, Not Private Entitlement Of Villagers Who Use It: Himachal Pradesh HC Refuses To Interfere With Construction Of Dam

Case Title: Rajesh Kumar & Ors Vs State of H. P. & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 20

The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that it is a misconception that water belongs to the villagers who use the same. Water is the property of the State and no individual has any right to claim this as his property, even though the same might be situated within his personal property, it clarified.

Highlighting the Constitutional provisions under Article 48A and 51A prescribing the duties of the Sate in matters of environment, the bench siad that the said constitutional provisions, clearly propounded the doctrine of public trust and the said doctrine rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and forests are of such great importance to the people as a whole that it would be highly unjustifiable to make them a subject of private ownership.

Arbitrator Under The National Highways Act Has To Give An Award Within 1 Year, Failure Can Result In Termination Of The Mandate: HP High Court

Case Title: Ganga Ram v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 21

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the arbitration proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956 are governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, thus, the arbitrator so appointed by the Central Government under Section 3G(a) of the National Highways Act is bound to follow the provisions of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja held that in terms of Section 29(A) of the A&C Act, the arbitrator is mandated to deliver an award within 1 year from the date of entering reference and non-compliance with this provision will result in the termination of the mandate of the arbitrator. The Court held that the same provision also applies to a statutory arbitration governed by the A&C Act, thus, the mandate of the arbitrator under National Highways Act will stand terminated if the award is not delivered within the stipulated time-period.