The court disposed of a civil writ petition as infructuous without providing substantive reasoning on the merits of the underlying claim.
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.2186 of 2012 Date of Decision: 17.03.2015
Raghunath Singh & others ………Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & others. …..Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioners: Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.K.B. Khajuria, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.S. Verma, Addl. G., for respondents-State No.1, 2 and 4.
Sanjay Karol, J (oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that present petition has become infructuous. As such, present petition stands disposed of, having become infructuous. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol), March 17, 2015 Judge. (Purohit)
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Raghunath Singh & others
State of H.P.
Sanjay Karol
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
