Himachal High Court asks cricket body to file reply

IANS| Updated: Dec 19, 2013, 20:44 PM IST

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court Thursday directed the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) to file reply by Jan 4 to the application of the state government seeking permission for passing final orders against the cricket body.

A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Justice Kuldip Singh granted the application of the HPCA to place on record additional documents and posted the matter for hearing Jan 4.

The court is hearing a case under section 41 of the HP Societies Registration Act, 2006. The court in its Nov 5 order had restrained the registrar (cooperative societies) from passing any final orders on the matter without the permission of the court.

The government after receiving a reply from the HPCA governing council submitted to the court that final orders must be passed at the earliest.

The government also filed its reply to the HPCA`s applications praying to implead chief minister Virbhadra Singh, Superintendent of Police Balbir Thakur, Director General of Police Sanjay Kumar and District Magistrate C. Paulrasu as respondents.

The government had stated that its decision dated Oct 26 to cancel HPCA`s lease and to take control of its properties has been withdrawn by it Nov 18 and on account of this development most of the prayers made in the writ petition have become infructuous.

The government also submitted that the chief minister and others are not necessarily parties as they are not concerned with the matter in their personal capacities. It also stated that the plea for amendment of writ petition is frivolous and meant merely to delay the proceedings and to remain in possession of the properties.

Earlier, the High Court indicted the government for forcible eviction of the HPCA from its stadia and ordered restoration of possession to it.

The court then ordered status quo ante with respect to the cabinet decision taking over the properties.

"The orders of forcible dispossession are against law, constitutional guarantee and obligations of the state to its citizens as a person in settled possession of a premises cannot be dispossessed by an executive fiat, even though he can be stated as a trespasser," the bench had observed.