HC reserves judgment on HPCA plea | punjab | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Mar 29, 2017-Wednesday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

HC reserves judgment on HPCA plea

punjab Updated: Jan 04, 2014 20:01 IST
HT Correspondent

The Himachal Pradesh high court on Saturday reserved its orders on a HPCA petition, seeking to implead chief minister Virbhadra Singh, director general of police Sanjay Kumar, Kangra district magistrate C Paulrasu and Kangra SP Balbir Singh Thakur as respondents and for an amendment into writ petition.

A division bench comprising acting chief justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir and justice Kuldip Singh after hearing arguments reserved its order, but directed the registrar of Cooperative Societies to list the application.

Earlier on October 26, 2013, the Himachal government had withdrawn its order to cancel leases granted to the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA).

The HPCA contended that the registrar, Cooperative Societies, was acting under the command of the chief minister, therefore, they were taking a biased decision.

It contended that the registrar had already filed written statements, wherein he had expressed his opinion.
However, the HPCA has not sought to implead the registrar, cooperative societies, in his personal capacity.

Meanwhile, on Saturday, advocate general Sharvan Dogra contended that the HPCA had concealed material facts from the court. He submitted before the court that the HPCA deliberately did not bring to the notice of the court that the government had withdrawn its letters of taking possession of the HPCA stadium in its application for an amendment into the writ petition.

He contended that the writ petition had become infructuous, as the relief claimed by the petitioner was already granted by the government by withdrawing its earlier orders.

He urged the court to permit the registrar to pass the final order against the statutory proceedings pending before him.

Meanwhile, senior advocate RS Cheema contended that the allegation levelled by the petitioner were vague and without any specifications. He contended that the petitioner had merely attached newspaper cuttings without even placing on record the entire newspaper or date of its publication. He added that there was no material on record to prove any malafide against the proposed respondents.

He contended that the applications were misconceived, as the government had already withdrawn its order challenged in the petition.