This petition, having been abandoned by the petitioner's counsel, sought clarification on approaching respondents regarding a specific case covered by a prior Division Bench judgment.
Direction issued to respondents to consider the petitioner's approach based on prior precedent within eight 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. 1717 of 2017 Date of Decision: 13.09.2017
| ____ Rajender Kumar …..Petitioner. |
|---|
| Versus |
| Union of India & 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?1
For the Petitioner: Ms. Bhavana Dutta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. __________
Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions,
does no press the present petition and submits that petitioner shall approach the respondents clearly bringing out the circumstances under which his case is covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 3.6.2015 passed in CWP No. 460 of 2014 titled as Shiv Ram Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., (along with connected matters).
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
…2…
any request is received by the appropriate authority, the same shall be considered on its merits, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks, by affording adequate opportunity of hearing/ representation to the petitioner. Needless to add, the authorities shall pass a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to all concerned.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands
disposed of, so also pending applications(s), if any.
( Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice
13th September, 2017 ( Sandeep Sharma ), Shankar Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek reconsideration of a matter covered by the decision in CWP No. 460 of 2014 regarding tender queries.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiv Ram Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.Explained¶8
CWP No. 460 of 2014
Rajender Kumar
Union of India
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
