The High Court of Himachal Pradesh directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's representation within four weeks while dismissing the writ petition.
Direction to respondent No. 3 to decide the petitioners representation within four 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 SHIMLA
CWP No. 1340 of 2017 Date of Decision: 21.06.2017
Ram Pratap ..Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors.
....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge .
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma & Mr. Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. (oral)
It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider the representation (Annexure P-4), made by him on 16.5.2017, in a time bound manner.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
…2…
he is at liberty to assail the same strictly in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith pending applications, if any.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.
21st June, 2017 ( Sandeep Sharma ), Manjit Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority is directed to consider the petitioner's representation within a time bound manner.
Ram Pratap
State of H.P.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
