Single judge allowed a writ petition relying on a Division Bench precedent. Annexe documents were quashed and the matter remanded to the Deputy Commissioner to decide within three months, maintaining an interim order.
Annexures P-10 and P-13 quashed; matter remanded to Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur to decide within three months.
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 No.210/2009 Decided on:3.3.2011
Parkasho Devi. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
…Respondents.
________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Mohan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ansul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 7.
Rajiv Sharma, Judge ( oral ) .
In view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Surekha Kumari versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others , CWP No. 282 of 2009, decided on 3.6.2010, the present petition is allowed. Annexures P-10 and P-13 dated 6.2.2008 and 23.12.2008, respectively are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur. He shall decide the same within a period of three months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. He shall pass a speaking order. The interim order dated 20.1.2009 shall continue till the disposal of the matter by the Deputy Commissioner. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma), Judge
3.3.2011 awasthi
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's writ petition should be allowed in light of a Division Bench judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surekha Kumari versus State of Himachal Pradesh and othersFollowed¶17
Surekha Kumari versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP No. 282 of 2009
Parkasho Devi
State of Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
