The High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the present Civil Writ Petition became infructuous due to an intervening development placed on record via a Common Miscellaneous Petition.
Petition disposed of as infructuous.
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. 1904 of 2016
Date of Decision: March 20, 2017
Madan Saregta & another …Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: None for the petitioner. For the Respondent: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with M/s Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Genral & J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Ms.Sukarma, for respondent No.2.
Respondent No.3 already ex-parte. Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr.Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5.
Sanjay Karol, J (oral).
In view of the intervening development, which
now stands placed on record vide CMP No. 1388 of 2017 (Page 348), present petition has become infructuous. As
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
such, present petition stands disposed of as having become infructuous, so also pending application(s), if
any.
(Sanjay Karol), Judge.
March 20, 2017 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan), (Purohit) Judge.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madan Saregta
State of H.P.
Sanjay Karol
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
