The High Court disposed of the writ petition after the counsel submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied with filing a representation before the competent authority.
Directed competent authority to consider petitioners' representation with annexures within two months with a hearing opportunity.
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.1242 of 2017
Date of decision: 14.06.2017
Sunil Kumar & others ..Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & others
..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 petitioners: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, and Mr. J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General.
Sanjay Karol, ACJ (oral)
Without pressing the petition on merits, learned counsel for the petitioners, under instructions, submit that petitioners shall be content if they are permitted to file a representation alongwith Annexures P-1 to P-7 of the present writ petition before the competent authority/ respondent No.1, venting out their grievances. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to the same.
2
respondent No.1 shall expeditiously consider and decide the same, in accordance with law.
( Sanjay Karol ) Acting Chief Justice
Sunil Kumar & others
State of H.P.
others
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
