Ms Rajinder Singh and Meena Kumari Vs State of Hp

For the Petitioner: Mr. Pranaya Pratap Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr. Anup Rattan and Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals. __________________________________________________ Per Sanjay Karol , A.C.J. (Oral)

¶11

It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to decide the representation (Annexure P-4), in a time bound manner and till the same is not

¶12

1 Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?

¶13

2

¶14

decided, the respondents be restrained from initiating

¶15

any coercive action against the petitioner.

¶16

The prayer appears to be genuine. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the aforesaid representation (Annexure P-4) within a period of four weeks and till that time, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶17

Copy dasti.

¶18

( Sanjay Karol ), Acting Chief Justice

¶19

28^th June, 2017(K) ( Sandeep Sharma ), Judge

Ms Rajinder Singh and Meena Kumari v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Rajinder Singh and Meena Kumari v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratap Chand Vs State of Hp

Khub Chand Vs State of Hp

Kamla Devi Vs Bhakra Beas Management Board

Ms Narkanda Filling Station Vs Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner

Ms Gannon Dunkerley and Company Limited Vs Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner-Cum-Appellate Authority

Lakhsmi Singh Negi Vs State of Hp