Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/10206/2012 of AMRIT LAL Vs STATE on 30 December 2013
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.10206/2012- A Decided on : December 30, 2013 Sh. Amrit Lal …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the
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.10206/2012-A
Decided on : December 30, 2013
Sh. Amrit Lal …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
…Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitender P. Ranote, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.S. Verma, Additional Advocate General.
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.4550 of 2010, titled as Ravi Kumar versus State of H.P. and another, on 16.12.2010.
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 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
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, 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.
December 30, 2013(KS)
(Sanjay Karol), J.