Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/9630/2013 of GIRDHARI LAL Vs STATE OF HP on 30 December 2013
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9630 of 2013-C Date of decision: 30.12.2013 Girdhari Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
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,SHIMLA
CWP No. 9630 of 2013-C
Date of decision: 30.12.2013
Girdhari Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. 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. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.R.M. Bist, Deputy Advocate General with Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents.
Sanjay Karol, J. (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. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 28.7.2010 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 21939 of 2011, titled as State of H.P. & others Vs. Som Nath & others, decided on 7.5.2013.
2. No other point is urged.
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.
4. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of as not pressed, so also, the pending application(s), if any.
(Sanjay Karol) Judge.
30[th] December, 2013 (KRS)
(V.K. Sharma), Judge.