Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs The Kangra Central Co-Op Bank Limited ... on 8 August, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 1848 of 2018 Decided on: August 8, 2018 .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajesh Kumar ................Petitioner Versus The Kangra Central Co-op Bank Limited and another ....Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral):
We are of the considered view that interests of justice would be best met if petitioner's prayer, limited in nature, allowing him to represent to the respondent authorities, is accepted. Taking a holistic view of the matter, we dispose of the present petition in the following terms:
(a) Petitioner shall approach respondent No. 1 within one week from today, pointing out his grievance emanating out of impugned order dated 4.8.2018 (Annexure P-2).
(b) Said authority shall decide petitioner's representation, if any, made within aforesaid period, positively within one week, thereafter.
(c) Till such decision is taken, order dated 4.8.2018 (Annexure P-2) shall be kept in
----------------------------------------------------------------------1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? .
::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2018 23:01:11 :::HCHP 2abeyance, more so when we are informed that as on the date of filing of petition i.e. .
5.8.2018, petitioner was not relieved.
(d) It stands clarified that in case petitioner does not approach the respondent-
authorities within one week, order of protection shall be deemed to have been vacated.
(e) All issues including that of maintainability are left open.
2. Needless to add, if the order passed by respondent-
authorities is not in favour of the petitioner, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Liberty granted to the petitioner to place additional material on record, if any.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice (Sandeep Sharma) Judge August 8 2018 (vikrant/brb) ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2018 23:01:11 :::HCHP