Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/1898/2011 of VISHNU RAM Vs STATE on 29 December 2011
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1898 of 2011-B Date of Decision : December 29, 2011 Vishnu Ram s/o Sh. Jia Lal Sharma R/o Type-3, Set No. 144, Kasumpti, Shimla-9, H.P. Petitioner Versus 1. State of H.P. through Pr. Secretary (Forest), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 1898 of 2011-B
Date of Decision : December 29, 2011
Vishnu Ram s/o Sh. Jia Lal Sharma
R/o Type-3, Set No. 144, Kasumpti, Shimla-9, H.P.
Petitioner
Versus
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.
1. State of H.P. through Pr. Secretary (Forest), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171002.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of H.P., Near Talland, Shimla-1.
3. Div. Forest Officer Publicity-Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171002. 171002.
Respondents
Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order and direction.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.
For the petitioner :Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate, for the petitioner. petitioner.
For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents. respondents.
Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral)
On 8.8.2011 following order was passed in the present petition:- Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
“No rejoinder sought to be filed. The respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as per the Rules and make submissions accordingly. Post on 13.9.2011. Dasti copy.”
2. The decision has yet not been taken. As such, Mr. A. K. Vashista, learned counsel submits that petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to comply with the order dated 8.8.2011.
3. Respondents are directed to take a decision, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to all concerned on or before 31[st] March, 2012.
4. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
Copy dasti.
December 29 , 2011 (PK)
(Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge.