Himachal Pradesh High Court
Babita Trehan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 6 September, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2052 of 2018 .
Decided on: September 6, 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Babita Trehan ................Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....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. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Abhilasha r Kaundal, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Sr. AAG with Mr. J.K.Verma, Adarsh Sharma, Ms. Ritta Goswami and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, AAG's, for respondents No.1 to 3.
None for respondent No.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral):
Petitioner, by the medium of this petition, has mainly prayed for the following relief:
"i. That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued and Annexure P-7 dated 2nd August, 2018 may very kindly be quashed and set aside and further the order dated 02.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) may also very kindly be quashed and set aside with further direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to serve at G.S.S.S. Banikhet in furtherance of transfer order dated 21st April, 2018 in the interest of law and justice."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? .
::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2018 22:59:51 :::HCHP 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner, under .
instructions submits that the petitioner shall be content if he is permitted to represent to respondent No.2, enabling him to take a decision thereupon. Also, petitioner does not press the issue raised in the present petition, for the relief as orally prayed for, is to permit the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.2.
3. State may not have any objections to the same, as such, as prayed for, we dispose of the present petition in the following terms:
a) Writ petitioner shall represent to respondent No.2 within a period of three days from today.
b) Aforesaid respondent shall consider said representation within a period of one week of receipt thereof
c) 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. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if need so arises subsequently.
d) It shall be open for the writ petitioner to join at transferred station or avail leave of the kind due, till such time, decision is taken.
4. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2018 22:59:51 :::HCHP 35. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.
.
Copy dasti.
(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice (Sandeep Sharma) Judge September 6, 2018 (vikrant/brb) ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2018 22:59:51 :::HCHP