Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 38]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sant Ram Chauhan & Another vs Union Of India & Others on 2 January, 2017

Bench: Chief Justice, Tarlok Singh Chauhan

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                                         CWP No. 3264 of 2016
                             Date of decision: 02.01.2017




                                                                      .
     ______________________________________________





     Sant Ram Chauhan & another          .....Petitioners
                       Versus
     Union of India & others             ....Respondents





     ________________________________________________
     Coram:
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice




                                            of
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana,
                                  Rana, Judge.
                                        Judge.
     Whether approved for reporting?1
     _________________________________________
     For the petitioners :               Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate.
     For the respondents:
                  rt                      Mr. Ashok Sharma, Assistant
                                         Solicitor General of India with Mr.
                                         Ajay Chauhan, Advocate, for

                                         respondent No. 1.
                                         Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with
                                         Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for
                                         respondents for 2 to 4.



     Mansoor Ahmad
             Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)

CMP No. 10871 of 2016.

Leave granted. The application is disposed of.

CWP No. 3264 of 2016.

2016.

2. By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to place before this Court the proceedings and recommendations made by the Committee appointed by respondent No. 2 and also sought writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 15.06.2016 (Annexure P-4).

1

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:50:57 :::HCHP -2-

3. It is a moot question-whether this writ petition is maintainable?

.

4. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners stated at the Bar that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a representation before respondent No. 2 and respondent No. of 2 may be directed to decide the same in a time bound manner. rt

5. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition by providing that the petitioners are at liberty to file a representation before respondent No. 2 within one week from today, and respondent No. 2 is directed to examine and make a decision thereon, as per the rules occupying the field, within six weeks, thereafter.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications.

Copy dasti.

(Mansoor Ahmad Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.

     January 2, 2017                             (P.S. Rana)
                                                       Rana)
      (hemlata)                                     Judge.




                                           ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:50:57 :::HCHP