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 10]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shupa Ram vs State Of H.P. And Others on 4 September, 2020

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Anoop Chitkara

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                          CWP No. 1553 of 2019




                                                                               .

                                                          Decided on: 04.09.2020


    Shupa Ram                                                               ...Petitioner





                                              Versus

    State of H.P. and others                                                ...Respondents


    Coram
                           r                to
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice.

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1


    For the petitioner:                  Mr.   Vinod    Chauhan,     Advocate,
                                         through Video Conferencing.




    For the respondents:                 Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General,
                                         with Mr. Adarsh K. Sharma and Ms.





                                         Ritta Goswami, Additional Advocates
                                         General, for respondents No. 1 to 3,
                                         through Video Conferencing.





                                         Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for
                                         respondent No. 4, through Video
                                         Conferencing.

    L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. (Oral)

The prayer made by the petitioner, in the instant writ petition, is for issuing direction to respondent No. 4 to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2020 20:20:27 :::HCHP 2

construct a retaining wall for the safety of the residential house of the petitioner.

.

2. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, submits that the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed and the work of construction of the retaining wall is almost complete. His submission is taken on record.

3. In light of the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, since the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, the instant writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an application for revival of the writ petition in case his grievance is still not redressed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice (Anoop Chitkara) Judge September 04, 2020 ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2020 20:20:27 :::HCHP