Important Judgments of Himachal Pradesh High Court (2024) - Legal Bites Year Update

Legal Bites brings you a roundup of Important decisions of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (2024), which played a significant role. It will help the readers to remember all legal and current updates of 2024 pertaining to the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the most efficient and easy way.

Important Judgments of Himachal Pradesh High Court (2024) - Legal Bites Year Update

1) Compensation for Land Acquisition: Upholding Constitutional and Human Rights

In Sita Devi & Ors. v. State of HP & Ors. (2024), the Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the State to acquire the petitioners' land, utilized for the construction of a road in 1986-87, and to pay compensation within four months. The Court rejected the State's defences of delay and verbal consent, citing Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of HP (2022) and Vidya Devi v. State of HP (2020), which affirm that depriving citizens of property without due process violates constitutional rights under Article 300-A and human rights.

The petitioners were entitled to compensation and consequential benefits as per law, reinforcing the principle that the State cannot deprive individuals of property arbitrarily.

2) Pension and Increment Rights for Contractual Employees Clarified

In Amita Mahajan v. State of H.P. & Ors. (2024), the petitioner sought recognition of her contractual service before regularization for pension eligibility under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, and for annual increments. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua referred to precedents such as Sheela Devi v. State of H.P., Jagdish Chand v. State of H.P., and others, where courts had established that contractual service preceding uninterrupted regularization qualifies for pension and increments. The court directed the respondents to verify the petitioner’s claim and, if she was similarly situated, to extend the benefits in line with the earlier judgments, ensuring completion within six weeks. Pending applications were also disposed of.

3) Timely Resolution Ordered in Police Transfer Matter

In Ashwani Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2024), the Himachal Pradesh High Court addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a transfer order dated 28.09.2023 and sought cancellation of the transfer based on a recommendation by the Battalion Level Police Establishment Committee. The committee had proposed that the petitioner’s transfer to the State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) be revoked and that he be retained in his current battalion or adjusted to a vacant post. The Court directed the competent authority to resolve the petitioner’s representation dated 20.10.2023 in light of the committee's recommendation, administrative exigency, and public interest, within two weeks, effectively disposing of the petition.

4) High Court Confirms Legitimacy of Extended Investigative Reports

In the case Raj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea to quash the trial court's cognizance of a supplementary charge sheet filed in a case under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, involving the seizure of 268 grams of heroin. The petitioner challenged the delay of five months in filing the supplementary charge sheet, alleging procedural lapses.

However, the Court upheld the legality of supplementary charge sheets under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, emphasizing that further investigation can introduce new evidence without invalidating the original investigation or charges. Relying on precedents, the Court ruled that cognizance is taken of the offence, not the offender and further investigation aims to uncover truth and ensure justice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with no infirmity found in the trial court's proceedings.

5) Transfer Order Set Aside Due to Lack of Public Interest

In Vikram Jit v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. (2024), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed a transfer order dated 30.07.2024, transferring the petitioner from GSSS Baat to GSSS Chhatrari. The Court found the transfer arbitrary, noting that the petitioner had already served in Chhatrari, a sub-cadre area, for over five years and was transferred back there without completing the normal tenure of three years at Baat. Additionally, the transfer was issued without Travel or Joining Time Allowance (TTA/JT) and without any public interest justification. The Court directed the petitioner to continue serving at GSSS Baat for a normal tenure of three years.

6) Judicial Orders and Administrative Responsibility

In Parvati Devi v. State of H.P. (2024), the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided by Justice Sandeep Sharma, addressed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought direction to the Tehsildar, Anni, District Kullu, to comply with an order dated 22.12.2022 issued by the Additional District Magistrate regarding re-verification of an income certificate. Noting the inordinate delay of over a year in implementing the order, the Court criticized the negligent attitude of government officials that compels citizens to approach courts for minor matters.

While refraining from initiating contempt proceedings, the Court directed the Tehsildar to comply within 48 hours and ordered the Chief Secretary to issue instructions for timely compliance with judicial orders. The petition was disposed of with strong observations on administrative inefficiency.

7) Time-Barred Arbitration Challenge: Key Rulings Applied by High Court

In National Highway Authority of India v. Narayan Dass (2024), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed an appeal against the judgment of the District Judge, which had rejected an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as barred by limitation. The arbitral award dated 03.02.2022 was received by the appellant on 13.10.2022, with the three-month limitation period expiring on 12.01.2023. The application was filed on 20.02.2023, beyond the prescribed period and the additional 30-day discretionary period under Section 34(3) of the Act.

Relying on precedents like Bhimashankar Shakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v. Walchandnagar Industries Limited and State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors, the court held that the appellant could not benefit from Section 4 of the Limitation Act as the prescribed period had lapsed before the winter court vacation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

8) IBC Supremacy Affirmed: High Court Orders Removal of Tax Charges on Liquidated Company

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Su-Kam Power System Ltd. & Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (2024), quashed the red entries/charges made by the State on the properties of Su-Kam Power System Ltd. for tax dues under various tax laws, holding them invalid under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The court affirmed that the approved acquisition plan under IBC overrides inconsistent provisions in other laws, including tax statutes, ensuring the "Clean Slate" principle applies. It directed the removal of these entries, emphasizing that statutory dues not forming part of the resolution or acquisition plan stand extinguished upon NCLT approval. The court relied on Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Edelweiss ARC Ltd. to reinforce the binding nature of the acquisition plan and the primacy of IBC provisions.