The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no issue survives as the State had complied with directions in a prior judgment. The court noted other issues remain open for separate remedies.
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. 594 of 2005-G. Decided on: 10th June, 2013.
Sidharth Kumar & others. …. Petitioners Versus State of HP and ors. … Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Ms. Bhawana Dutt, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Romesh Verma, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG, for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Ravinder Thakur, CGC, for respondent No.4. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. (Oral)
The reliefs claimed in this writ petition are worked out in view of the directions given in CWP No. 192 of 2004 titled Ankush Dass vs. State of H.P ., decided on 22nd June, 2007. There is nothing to indicate that the directions so given have not been complied with by the State Government either fully or in part. In that sense, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition. The same is disposed of.
(A.M. Khanwilkar), Chief Justice.
10th June, 2013. (Kuldip Singh), (tr/vs) Judge.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CWP No. 192 of 2004, Ankush Dass vs. State of H.P.Referred¶11
Sidharth Kumar & others
State of HP
A.M. Khanwilkar
Kuldip Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
