Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sh. Joga Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 13 October, 2015

Bench: Sanjay Karol, P.S. Rana

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                   SHIMLA
                                         CWP No. 4084 of 2015-I
                                         Date of Decision: 13.10.2015
    Sh. Joga Singh                                                          ...Petitioner.




                                                                                .

                                         Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh & another                                 ..Respondents.





    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, Judge.




                                                     of
    Whether approved for reporting? 1No.
    For the Petitioner:                  Mr.Mehar Chand & Gaurav Gautam,
                                         Advocates.
                          rt
    For the Respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, AG., with M/s
                         Kush   Sharma,  Deputy    Advocate
                         General and J.S. Guleria, Assistant

                         Advocate General, for respondent
                         No.1.

                                         Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for the


                                         respondents/Corporation .

    Sanjay Karol, J (oral)

In view of the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition, reserving liberty to seek recourse to appropriate remedy in accordance with law, including filing a representation to appropriate authorities, bringing out the circumstances, under which, his case is allegedly covered by the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

titled as Nek Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, on 17.07.2014.

2. Liberty granted.

.

3. As such, petition is disposed of with a direction that as and when any request is received by respondent/competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided, on its merits, in accordance with of law, expeditiously within a period of six weeks, by affording adequate opportunity of hearing/representation rt to the petitioner. Needless to add, the authorities shall pass a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to all concerned, including the petitioner. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum on the same cause of action, if need so arises subsequently. In the event of matter being decided in favour of the petitioner, all consequential benefits shall follow in terms of Nek Ram (supra).

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Copy dasti.

                                                        (Sanjay Karol),
                                                            Judge



                                                            (P.S. Rana),
    October 13, 2015                                           Judge.
           (Purohit)




                                            ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:11:32 :::HCHP