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 1, Cited by 12]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Raj Kumar Sharma & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 8 April, 2015

Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                 CWP No. 7339 of 2010.




                                                                          .
                                                 Date of decision: 8.4.2015.





       Raj Kumar Sharma & ors.                                           .....Petitioners.





                                                 Vs.
       State of H.P. & anr.                                              .... Respondents.

       Coram





       The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

       Whether approved for reporting? Yes        1




       For the petitioners                :      Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate.

       For the respondents            :          Mr. Shrawan Dogra,      Advocate

                                                 General with Mr. Virender Kumar
                                                 Verma and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma,
                                                 Additional Advocate Generals.



       Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. (Oral):

It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner s that this case is squarely covered by the judgements rendered by the learned Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 36 of 2010 titled Sita Ram State of H.P. & ors.

vs. decided on 15.7.2010 and learned single Bench of this court in CWP No. 2979 of 2012 titled Sh. Prem Lal vs. State of H.P and ors. decided on 1.1.2013.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:58:23 :::HCHP ...2...

2. This aspect of the matter is required to be considered by the respondents. Accordingly, this writ petition itself is directed .

to be treated as representation to respondent No. 2, who shall consider the same in light of the averments made therein as also taking into consideration the judgements passed by this court in the cases referred to above.

3. Needless to add that respondent No. 2 shall pass a speaking and reasoned order and in the event of order being against the petitioners, they are at liberty to approach the court of a competent jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievances.

4. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms so also the pending application, if any.

April 8, 2015. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan), ( Hem ) Judge ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:58:23 :::HCHP