Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/9661/2013 of MEENA RANI Vs STATE OF HP on 30 December 2013
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9661 of 2013-G Date of decision: 30.12.2013 Meena Rani …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. 9661 of 2013-G
Date of decision: 30.12.2013
Meena Rani
…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
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 her case is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in LPA No. 105 of 2010, titled as State of H.P. & others Vs. Rakesh Chand and others, decided on 13.12.2012.
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, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No.
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, 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.