The Single Judge allowed the writ petition as it was squarely covered by a prior judgment in Uma Dutt Sharma. The respondents were directed to comply within six weeks.
Petition allowed; respondents directed to do needful within six weeks; pending applications disposed of; no costs.
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.
CWP(T) No.: 8174 of 2008.
Decided on: 02.12.2010.
Arun Singh Guleria.
… Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and other. … Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit Sehgal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General.
Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) :
It is represented by the learned counsel for the parties that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Uma Dutt Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP(T) No.2599 of 2008, decided on 7th July, 2009.
(Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 02, 2010. (sck).
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Uma Dutt Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh and othersFollowed¶13
Uma Dutt Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP(T) No.2599 of 2008
Arun Singh Guleria
State of Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
