A division bench of the HC comprising Acting Chief Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan rejected HPCA’s plea to make Registrar (Cooperative) R D Nazeem and three other officials party in their personal capacity in the petition against cancellation by the government of the land lease to HPCA for the cricket stadium at Dharamsala.
The court however allowed the cricket association to amend its petition and file it within a week.
The HPCA had alleged malafide and bias on the part of Chief Minister and Registrar (Societies) in forcibly taking over the possession of the stadium at Dharamsala in October 2013 but the divison bench did not accept the argument maintaining that no specific averment has been made in this regard.
However, the court did not vacate its stay, refraining the Registrar (Societies) from passing orders on the show cause notice sent to the cricket body, questioning the change of its status from sports body to a company.
The HPCA’s plea to implead Chief Minister and other officials, including Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, SP and Director General of Police had been rejected by the High Court, but the HPCA filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, which asked the HC to hear the HPCA plea afresh.
The court, while dealing with the issues involving take-over of the cricket stadium and cancellation of the land lease by the government, after a cabinet meeting on October 26, 2013, noted that the state government had withdrawn the order for cancellation of the land lease after High Court granted an interim relief.
The court in its order said, “Firstly, in the writ petition, there is nothing against proposed respondents Chief Minister and Registrar and otherwise also, the writ petitioners have caught by the waiver and entire exercise appears to be an afterthought.
“It is worthwhile to mention here that virtually the writ petitioners have alleged malafide/bias on the basis of the order, dated October 26, 2013, but the same stands withdrawn and the writ petition has become infructuous and the applications stand dismissed so far as they relate to arraying the proposed respondents,” it said.
The court observed that no prima facie case is made out for arraying the proposed respondents as party/parties in the array of respondents and dismissed the application.