Vijay Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Another

L. Narayana Swamy, CJ

Notice was issued to the petitioner under Sections 6 and 7 of the H.P. Panchayti Raj Act (for short, “the Actâ€) granting two weeks time to the

petitioner to file reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provision, six weeks should have been given to the petitioner, but

contrary to the same two weeks have been given to file the reply. Hence, he prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to grant six weeks

time.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, submits that as per the amendment brought to the Municipal Act on 24th

September, 2020, two weeks in place of six weeks has been amended and in view of the said amendment, reply to the notice under Sections 6 and 7

of the Act must be made within a period of two weeks.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he has already filed the reply to the notice issued by the respondents within a

period of two weeks, the same shall have to be considered.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In view of the fact that the amendment has been brought to the

Municipal Act on 24th September, 2020 granting two weeks time within which one should file the reply and if such reply is filed it is for the

respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

In light of the above discussion, the writ petition stands disposed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the

respondents before the appropriate Authority, in accordance with law.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.