Deputy Advocate General failed to point out any error on the record in the Tribunal's judgment dated 22.03.2006 in Megh Raj versus State of H.P. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed along with pending applications.
The present petition is dismissed so also the pending application(s), if any.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
C. Rev.(T) No.: 7 of 2010.
Decided on: 10.11.2010.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Petitioners. Versus Megh Raj. … Respondent.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : None.
Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) :
Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has taken the Court to the judgment dated 22nd March, 2006 rendered by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Megh Raj versus State of H.P. and others, O.A. (D) No.401 of 2004 . The judgment is based on the basis of the Policy framed by the State Government. The learned Deputy Advocate General has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Rajiv Sharma), Judge. November 10, 2010. (sck).
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal in Megh Raj versus State of H.P. and others is free from error apparent on the face of record.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Megh Raj
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
