Himachal Pradesh High Court

CWP/9510/2013 of BISHNOO RAM Vs STATE OF HP on 30 December 2013

Cites 1, Cited by 0

COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9510 of 2013- A Date of decision : 30.12.2013 Bishnoo Ram …. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

1

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…

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.9510 of 2013-A

Date of decision: 30.12.2013

Bishnoo Ram

…. Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

…. Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Bir Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondents:Mr. R.S. Verma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. A.G.

General, Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. and

Sanjay Karol, Judge(Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, does not press the present petition and submits that petitioner shall approach the respondents clearly bringing out the circumstances under which his case is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in CWP No.6510/2013, titled as Girdhari Lalversus State of H.P. & others, on 10.9.2013.

2. No other point is urged.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. Leaving the questions of law open, it is open for the petitioner to approach the respondents, as prayed for. As and when any such request is received by the appropriate authority, the same shall be considered on its merits, in accordance with law, also keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta versus State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1998 SC 2819, within a period of eight weeks, by affording adequate opportunity of hearing/representation to the petitioners. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioner, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of as not pressed, so also, the pending application(s), if any.

(Sanjay Karol ), Judge.

December 30, 2013(KS)

(V.K. Sharma),Judge.

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead