The court disposed of a petition where respondents passed a non-acceptable fresh order, noting the conduct was not contumacious. Liberty to assail the order independently was reserved. Pending applications were also disposed.
Disposed of the petition reserving liberty to assail the order independently.
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
COPC No.123 of 2017 Date of Decision: 17.08.2017 ____ Sh. Balwan Singh Pathania …..Petitioner.
Versus
Sh. R.D. Dhiman & another ...Respondents. Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge .
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Appellant: Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, and Mr. J.K.Verma and Mr. Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/ State. __________
Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (oral)
From the response/ affidavit so filed, we find the respondents to have passed fresh order dated 5th July, 2017 Annexure R-3, which is not acceptable to the present petitioner. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that act and conduct of the respondents is contumacious.
accordingly.
( Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice
17th August, 2017 ( Sandeep Sharma), ( shankar) Judge.
Balwan Singh Pathania
R.D. Dhiman
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
