High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 03 SHI CK 0328

Vakil Singh, Daya Ram and Malkiat Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 7 March 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajiv Sharma, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CWP 7957 of 2011-J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 354 words

Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge

1.

Records produced and perused. Petitioners'' names were included in BPL list on the basis of which they were entitled to certain privileges including special ration card. However, fact of the matter is that as far as petitioners No. 1 and 3, namely Sh. Vakil Singh and Sh. Malkiat Singh are concerned, their names have been deleted from the BPL list on the basis of the meeting convened on 3.4.2011. Mr. Dharam Pal, Panchayat Secretary submits that as far as name of petitioner No.2, namely, Shri Daya Ram is concerned, it has not been deleted. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioners No. 1 and 3 have not been heard before the decision was taken by respondent No. 5, Gram Panchayat, Basantpur to delete their names from the BPL list. The submission made by Mr. Ajay Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been rebutted.

2.

Petitioners No. 1 and 3 have suffered civil and evil consequences. They ought to have been heard by issuing proper notices before process was initiated to delete their names by respondent No. 5, Gram Panchayat, Basantpur. Natural justice is the integral part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners No. 1 and 3 are deprived of certain privileges after their names have been arbitrarily deleted from the BPL list by respondent No. 5.

3.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-2, dated 3.4.2011 is quashed and set aside. Petitioners No. 1 and 3 shall be entitled to all the privileges to which they were entitled before issuance of Annexure P-2. The liberty is reserved to respondent No. 5 to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that in case the decision adverse to the petitioners No. 1 and 3 is taken, it shall not be implemented for a period of six weeks from the date of such decision in order to enable them to approach the competent Court of law for the redressal of their grievance. The pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.