High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of a review petition without identifying any error on record but granted liberty to approach appropriate authorities for redressal, noting pending writ and review petitions as limitation bars.
Liberty granted to petitioners to move appropriate petition for redressal of grievance; 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.
C. Rev. No.: 73 of 2010.
Decided on: 09.11.2010.
Devi Ram Chauhan and another. … Petitioners. Versus Director of Technical Education and another. … Respondents.
Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General.
Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) :
There is no error apparent on the face of record. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to move appropriate petition for the redressal of their subsisting grievance, if any, in accordance with law. The limitation shall not come in their way due to the pendency of CWP (T) No.5756 of 2008 and the review petition No.73 of 2010. 2. Consequently, with the above observations, the present petition is disposed of. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
November 09, 2010. (sck).
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Devi Ram Chauhan and another
Director of Technical Education and another
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
