Petitioner seeking direction to respondent regarding pending representation. Court directed respondent to decide representation on merits within three weeks.
Directed respondent to decide representing petition within three weeks.
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 AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 1443 of 2014.
Date of Decision: 1st April, 2014.
Chanchal Kumar .. Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others .. Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. B.S. Parmar and Mr. Anup Rattan, Additional Advocates General.
Sanjay Karol J. (Oral)
Learned Counsel submits that petitioner would feel content if a direction is issued to respondent No.2, with whom petitioner’s representation is pending for decision. As such, leaving the questions of law open, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide petitioner’s representation on its own merits, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from today, after affording
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Interim order dated 11th
March, 2014 shall continue till then.
of, so also pending application(s), if any.
(Sanjay Karol), Judge.
April 01, 2014.
(rc)
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
Chanchal Kumar
State of Himachal Pradesh
Sanjay Karol
Dharam Chand Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
