HC dismisses Tourism Secy’s application with Rs 50,000 cost

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an application filed by the Principal Secretary (Tourism and Civil Aviation) seeking a modification in its order passed on March 27 to the extent that the state had never agreed to the deferment of the share transfer of EIH Limited (Wild Flower Hall) beyond March 31.

That the application moved on an affidavit of the Principal Secretary (Tourism and Civil Aviation) to the state government was on the argument that the statement made by the Advocate General on March 27 that the government had agreed to the transfer of shares by claimant EIH Ltd. after the decision on the two applications pending before the court, was inadvertent and the state had never agreed to this.

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua had dismissed the application last week and imposed Rs 50,000 as cost on the Principal Secretary (Tourism and Civil Aviation). The court had observed that “the instant application is nothing but a misdirected and disrespectful adventure on the part of the Principal Secretary (Tourism and Civil Aviation) that violates the defined boundaries of different offices.”

Justice Jyotsna stated that “the Advocate General is the first and supreme Law Officer of the state. His statement, as recorded in the order passed on March 27, is being attributed to in the application by the Principal Secretary (Tourism and Civil Aviation) as an inadvertent mistake. It is quite apparent that the Advocate General was not even consulted by the officer before filing the swearing-in affidavit in support of this application, labelling the Advocate General’s statement as an inadvertent mistake in the open court.”

During the course of the hearing, Advocate General Anup Rattan reiterated his previous statement and submitted before the court that the state had taken further action, as per his statement recorded in the order of March 27.

The Advocate General submitted that he was under instruction of the state government to say what had been recorded in the order of March 27 and the present application was nothing but a contempt committed by the Principal Secretary (Tourism and Civil Aviation), as it amounted to interference in the administration of justice and was disrespectful to him as well.

The Advocate General had prayed for reserving his right to seek an appropriate remedy, including a contempt petition against the officer. The court accepted his request.

It is pertinent to mention here that on March 27, the Advocate General had stated before the court that at present, the state was not in a position to run/use the Wild Flower Hall property and required time in that regard to complete the tender process.

He had informed the court that in the interregnum, to ensure that the property in question, which was at present a going concern, was not wasted and there was no loss of revenue, the state was seriously deliberating on giving its possession to East India Hotel Limited (EIH Ltd.) after the latter handed back its vacant possession to the state on March 31 for its use as per mutually agreed terms and conditions for a specific period of time/till the tender process was completed.

Himachal Tribune