The petitioner filed a CWP challenging registration appointment duration. The High Court held the petition was infructuous due to the limited appointment period and dismissed it without costs.
CWP dismissed without 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.: 8305 of 2008.
Decided on: 03.12.2010.
__________________________________________________________ Dr. Pardeep Bansal. … Petitioner.
Versus
Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5.
Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) :
Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that since the period of appointment of Registrar is confined from one to three years, the present petition is rendered infructuous. Consequently, the same is dismissed having become infructuous, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
December 03, 2010. (sck).
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Dr. Pardeep Bansal
Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
