Disposed

Ms New Prem Bus Service v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC1 May 2017CWP/448/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of multiple concurrent writ petitions without adjudicating on merits, directing the respondent authority to reconsider and decide the petitioners' claims expeditiously within four weeks while affording a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents authority to decide petitioner claims expeditiously within four weeks with opportunity of hearing.

Ms New Prem Bus Service Vs State of Hp — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 9283 of 2014	a/w CWP Nos.9473/2014,
9477/2014, 9799/2014,	387/2015, 398/2015, ,
448/2015, 1504/2015,	2005/2015, 2286/2015,
2404/2015, 2484/2015,	2896/2015, 3006/2015,
3712/2015, 3713/2015,	3714/2015, 3728/2015,
3730/2015, 3731/2015,	4006/2015, 4007/2015,
4041/2015, 4123/2015,	4173/2015, 677/2016,
679/2016, 741/2016,	742/2016, 743/2016,
803/2016, 821/2016,	959/2016, 960/2016,
1118/2016 & 1172/2016

¶3

Date of Decision: May 1, 2017

¶4

1. CWP No. 9283 of 2014

¶5

M/s Patial Bus Service through its Proprietor …Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
2. CWP No. 9473 of 2014
M/s Kashyap Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner.

¶8

Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
3. CWP No. 9477 of 2014 M/s Kartik Bus Service. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
4. CWP No. 9799 of 2014
M/s Hussain Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.

¶9

¶10

5. CWP No. 387 of 2015 M/s Jogindra Transport Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
6. CWP No. 398 of 2015 M/s Una Highways Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner. Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
7. CWP No. 448 of 2015 M/s New Prem Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
8. CWP No. 1504 of 2015 M/s Kewal Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
9. CWP No. 2005 of 2015 M/s Neelam Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
10. CWP No. 2286 of 2015 M/s Arvind Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.

¶11

¶12

11. CWP No. 2404 of 2015 M/s Vipul Travels through its Proprietor. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
12. CWP No. 2484 of 2015 M/s Hans Travels through its Proprietor. …Petitioner. Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
13. CWP No. 2896 of 2015 M/s Jogindra Transport through its Proprietor. …Petitioner. Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
14. CWP No. 3006 of 2015 M/s Krishna Transport Company through its Proprietor. …Petitioner. Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
15. CWP No. 3712 of 2015 M/s Jogindra Transport through its Proprietor. …Petitioner. Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
16. CWP No. 3713 of 2015 M/s Jogindra Transport through its Proprietor. …Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.

¶13

¶14

17. CWP No. 3714 of 2015 Asha Kumari. …Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
18. CWP No. 3728 of 2015 M/s Jogindra Transport through its Proprietor. …Petitioner. Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
19. CWP No. 3730 of 2015 M/s Jogindra Transport through its Proprietor. …Petitioner. Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
20. CWP No. 3731 of 2015 M/s Jogindra Transport through its Proprietor. …Petitioner. Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
21. CWP No. 4006 of 2015 M/s God Valley Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
22. CWP No. 4007 of 2015
Vishal Thakur …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.

¶15

¶16

23. CWP No. 4041 of 2015 Bhupesh Nandan …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
24. CWP No. 4123 of 2015 M/s Rangra Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner. Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
25. CWP No. 4173 of 2015 Sujata Rani …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
26. CWP No. 677 of 2016 M/s Una Highways Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner. Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
27. CWP No. 679 of 2016 M/s Jogindra Transport Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
28. CWP No. 741 of 2016 M/s Jyoti Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.

¶17

¶18

29. CWP No. 742 of 2016 M/s Jyoti Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
30. CWP No. 743 of 2016 M/s Hussain Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner. Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
31. CWP No. 803 of 2016 M/s New Prem Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner. Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
32. CWP No. 821 of 2016 M/s Himachal Niji Bus Operators Sangh through its President. …Petitioner. Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
33. CWP No. 959 of 2016 M/s Patial Bus Service through its Proprietor. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.

¶19

¶20

34. CWP No. 960 of 2016

¶21

M/s Kashyap Bus Service through its Proprietor.

¶22

…Petitioner.

¶23

Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. 35. CWP No. 1118 of 2016 Aananu Tours & Travels through its Proprietor.

¶24

…Petitioner.

¶25

Versus

¶26

State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. 36. CWP No. 1172 of 2016 M/s Rangra Bus Service through its Proprietor.

¶27

…Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. Coram:

¶28

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

¶29

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶30

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶31

For the Respondent: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with M/s Romesh Verma, & Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate Generals, J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State.

¶32

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral).

¶33

After the matters were heard for some time, Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, learned counsel, under instructions, submits that if already not done so,

¶34

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶35

¶36

petitioner(s) shall approach the competent authority, who may be directed to decide the petitioner(s) claims, in accordance with law.

¶37

State has no objection to the same.

¶38

As such, as orally prayed for, leaving all questions open and without adjudicating the cases on merits, we dispose of the present petitions with a direction to the respondents authority to consider and decide the petitioner(s) request expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of such receipt. Needless to add, opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to all concerned and order assigning reasons shall be supplied to the respective parties. It shall be open for the parties to agitate the issue before this Court or any other Fora, if so required and desired.

¶39

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶40

(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice. May 1, 2017 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan), (Purohit) Judge.

Ms New Prem Bus Service v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms New Prem Bus Service v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Vs State of Hp

Kartar Chand Vs State of Hp

Dharam Pal Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Charan Singh

Ms Vipul Travels Vs State of Hp

Sanjay Bhardwaj Vs State of Hp