Himachal Pradesh High Court
CIVIL APPEAL 9675 of 2013 on 31 December 2013
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.9675 of 2013
Date of decision: 31.12.2013
Milap Chand …. Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. and others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.
For the Petitioner :Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General.
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.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, alongwith connected matters, on 28.7.2010 and decision rendered by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).21939-22009/2011, titled as State of H.P. & ors.versus Som Nath & ors. etc., on 7.5.2013.
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 petitioner. Needless to add, the authorities shall pass a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to all concerned.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of as not pressed, so also, the pending applications(s), if any.
(Sanjay Karol ),
Judge.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
December 31, 2013(KS)