Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/508/2023 on 29 December 2023
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
COPC No.508 of in CWP No.7542 of 2022
Decided on: 29th December, 2023 ________________________________________________________ Om Prakash Sharma
....Petitioner
Versus
Virender Sharma & anr.
….Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Radhey Shyam Gautam,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
Advocate General, for
respondent No.2.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Ms. Archna Dutt, learned Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes of notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. This Court had passed the following order in CWP No.7542 of 2022, titled as Om Prakash Versus Himachal Pradesh University and anr., on 25.08.2023, which read as under:- “5. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment and in case, the petitioner is found to be similarly situated, then the benefit extended to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, shall also be extended to the petitioner in the instant case also. The entire exercise be completed within six weeks from today. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner.”
3. At the very outset, Ms. Archna Dutt, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned State Counsel, submit that in case the judgment dated 25.08.2023 has not been implemented and the requisite order has not been passed till day, therefore, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed within six weeks from today and the same shall be conveyed to the petitioner also.
4. In view of the statement so made, the present Contempt Petition is closed with a direction to the respondents to implement the judgment dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure C-1), within six weeks from today.
In case the judgment dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure C-1) is not implemented by passing the necessary consideration order, the petitioner is free to seek revival of the instant Contempt petition.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge December 29, 2023
(Shivender)