MANOHAR LAL KHULLAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed as public interest litigation. The respondents have raised preliminary objections; firstly on the ground that the petition is not bonafide but motivated petition, inasmuch as the petitioner was tenant of respondent No. 5 and was evicted by respondent No. 5 from the tenanted premises, as a result of that action, the petitioner has filed this petition out of vengeance. Secondly, the petitioner is neither resident of the locality in question nor is he residing in the State, anymore. This factual position has been stated on affidavit, which has remained uncontroverted. Thirdly, the petitioner is challenging orders passed by the Statutory Authority, which were amenable to statutory appeal. The petitioner, instead of availing the said remedy, has resorted to present petition, as public interest litigation. The other preliminary objection taken by the respondents, is that, the petitioner is assailing the decision of the Collector (Settlement), passed as back as on 1st August, 1990, by way of present petition filed on 10th September, 207. In other words, the relief claimed by the . petitioner is otherwise barred by laches.

(3.) FURTHER , it is indisputable that the orders which are questioned in the present petition were passed in the year 1990 and this petition has been filed almost after a lapse of 17 years therefrom. To overcome this argument, counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the reply-affidavit filed by respondents No.1 to 4, in which, it is stated that action was initiated against private respondent No.5, being non-Himachali and non-agriculturist, under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 on 24.4.2001. It is admitted in paragraph 4 of the reply-affidavit that the said proceedings remained un-decided till March, 2008. Even so, we cannot entertain the present petition as public interest litigation at the instance of the petitioner herein.