Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 24 - July 30

Nominal indexDev Sanskriti Charitable Trust Kullu Vs State of H.P. & others 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 52Rangila Ram Vs State of HP 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 53People for Responsible Governance Vs State of HP 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 54Dr Nadeem Akhtar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 55Sandeep Kaur Vs State of HP 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 56Judgments/Orders'Non-Specific Allegations': Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Alleged Transfer Of Lands Belonging To Local DeitiesCase Title: Dev Sanskriti Charitable Trust Kullu Vs State of H.P. & othersCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 52The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a plea filed by a registered trust seeking a declaration that the transfer of lands belonging to local deities to third parties, under various land reform acts is void ab initio.“In most of the cases, the income of deity is from offerings or/and from the returns from its properties. In so far as these are appropriated towards the better management of religious affairs of the deity, possibly no questions come to be raised. It is only when the manager(s) of the properties of (idol) deity indulges in the mismanagement of such properties or deal with them in a manner prejudicial to the rights of deity, their action becomes questionable and in appropriate cases where their malfeasance is proved, the transactions are vitiated”, the bench explained.S.164 HP Panchayati Raj Act | Annexure Forming Integral Part Of Election Petition Must Be Signed, Document Produced As Evidence Exempt: High CourtCase Title: Rangila Ram Vs State of HPCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 53The Himachal Pradesh High Court clarified the legal requirements regarding election petitions under Section 164 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The court held that the schedule or annexure accompanying an election petition must be signed and verified by the petitioner, while documents presented as evidence of the petition's averments are exempt from this requirement.Can't Create "Bogey Of Mistrust" In Selection Process: Himachal Pradesh High Court Junks Plea Seeking Video Recording Of Interviews By HPPSCCase Title: People for Responsible Governance Vs State of HPCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 54The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by an NGO seeking mandatory videography of the interviews conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC) and other recruitment agencies in the State.“..One should not start with a premise that something untoward is being done / is going to be done in every selection process; and unnecessarily, one cannot create a bogey of mistrust in the public in that regard and make them lose confidence in the selection being made by the respondents”, Chief Justice M.S Ramachandra Rao & Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed.[Alleged FB Posts Against Lord Shiva] 'Laxman Rekha Shouldn't Be Crossed In Name Of Freedom Of Expression': HP High Court Denies Relief To A DoctorCase title - Dr Nadeem Akhtar vs. State of Himachal PradeshCase Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 55The Himachal Pradesh High Court denied anticipatory bail to a qualified ophthalmologist facing an FIR under Sections 295A IPC, 153A and 505 (2) IPC on the allegations of posting derogatory Facebook comments against Lord Shiva and Lord Nandi (the bull vahana of Lord Shiva.).Noting that as per the allegations, the applicant (Dr. Nadeem Akhtar) has posted derogatory comments which have hurt the religious sentiments of a particular section, the bench of Justice Virender Singh noted that he is not a layman but an educated person, who is well aware of the effect of his alleged post and comments.Himachal Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Requirement Of 'Bonafide Himachali Certificate' For Compassionate EmploymentCase Title: Sandeep Kaur Vs State of HPCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 56The Himachal Pradesh High Court struck down the requirement of furnishing a 'Bonafide Himachali Certificate' for obtaining compassionate appointment, holding such a condition to be in violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of residence.“As per Art.16(2) of the Constitution no citizen can be discriminated on basis of residence. So insisting that petitioner produces such a certificate when it is undisputed that she is an Indian citizen and daughter of the deceased employee of the 2nd respondent cannot be countenanced”, the bench said while adding “So insisting that petitioner produces such a certificate when it is undisputed that she is an Indian citizen and daughter of the deceased employee of the 2nd respondent cannot be countenanced”.News Updates:Why Action Not Taken Against Those Violating Biodiversity Act? Himachal Pradesh High Court Asks State BoardThe Himachal Pradesh High Court recently questioned the State Biodiversity Board regarding its failure to act against those violating the express provisions of the Biodiversity Act 2002.Section 7 read with Section 24(2) of the Act restrains any citizen or entity from...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 24 - July 30

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags