Dismissed

Suresh Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Jul 2017CWP/1645/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, without pressing the petition on merits and agreeing to file a representation, was permitted to approach the competent authority. The transfer was stayed pending the decision on the representation, which the authority must decide within two weeks upon due hearing. If the representation is not filed within one week, the stay automatically lapses.

What did the court decide?

Transfer stayed pending decision on petitioner's representation; authority to decide within two weeks after due hearing.

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 1645 of 2017-E

¶3

Date of Decision : July 19 , 2017

¶4

Suresh Kumar s/o Ratan Lal … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents

¶7

Coram:

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice, The Hon’ble Mr. Justice, Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶10

For the petitioner : Mr. S. C. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

For the respondent : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr. Romesh Verma, Addl. Advocate Generals and Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondent No. 1.

¶12

Mr. Yash Wardhan Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶13

Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (Oral)

¶14

Without pressing the petition on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that petitioner shall be content if he is permitted to file a representation before the competent authority to be

¶15

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

¶17

decided within a reasonable time. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to the same.

¶18

No other point is urged.

¶19

As such, as prayed for, without touching the merits of the matter, leaving all issues open, petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i) Petitioner shall positively approach the respondents/competent authority within a period of one week from today. (ii) Upon receipt of such representation, respondents/competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, by affording due opportunity of hearing/representation to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks. (iii) Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioner, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. (iv) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to place additional material on record, if any. (v) The transfer of the petitioner shall remain stayed till and so long his representation is not decided. However, it is made clear that if representation is not made within the period granted

¶20

¶21

herein above, interim order of protection shall automatically

¶22

stand vacated.

¶23

Petition stands disposed of accordingly, as also pending application(s), if any.

¶24

Copy dasti.

¶25

(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.

¶26

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge.

¶27

July 19 , 2017 (PK)

Suresh Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar 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

Kuldeep Vs State of Hp

Alturist Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Alturist Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court on its own Motion Vs State of Hp

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Gul Mohammad Ganie alias Gulam Mohammad Ganie Vs Food Corporation of India