Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/2994/2018 of KAMLA Vs STATE OF HP on 31 December 2018
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2994 of 2018-J Date of Decision : December 31 , 2018 Kamla & another … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice
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, SHIMLA
CWP No. 2994 of 2018-J
Date of Decision : December 31 , 2018
Kamla & another… Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others…Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice.The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Geol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1]
For the petitioners :Mr. P.M. Negi, Advocate.
For the respondents :Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General withMr. Adarsh Sharma, Addl. AdvocateGeneral.
Surya Kant, Chief Justice. (Oral)
The grievance of the petitioners in the instantwrit petition is against the grant of status of Tribal to oneRam Singh who happens to be the brother of father ofpetitioner No. 1. It is alleged that on the basis of thatcertificate Ram Singh made an attempt to usurp the land ofthe petitioner though subsequently the entries have beencorrected in favour of the petitioner. The main grievance1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
thus is that the said Ram Singh is not entitled to claim thestatus of Tribal as he does not belong to Village Roghey,Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnaur.
2. In our considered view the issue sought to beraised by the petitioners is essentially a question of factwhich can be examined by the authorities including SDO(C),Kullu/Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, who have granted thesaid certificate.
3. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of withliberty to the petitioners to make a representation to theabove said authorities, who in turn are directed to hold afact finding inquiry and decide the petitioners’objections/representation in accordance with law and byobserving the principles of natural justice within two monthsfrom the date of receipt of such representation/objections.
Pending application(s), if any, also standdisposed of accordingly.
(Surya Kant), Chief Justice.
December 31 , 2018 (PK)
(Ajay Mohan Goel), Judge.