The court found that the respondents fully complied with directions in a prior judgment in CWP No. 6069 of 2010, but left open surviving issues for the petitioner to agitate under law.
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.
18.09.2017. Present:
Ex. Pet. No. 10 of 2017.
Mr. Rohit Chauhan, vice counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.
We find the respondents to have fully complied
with the directions contained in the judgment dated 29.9.2011, passed in CWP No. 6069 of 2010, titled Babu Ram versus Divisional Manager, HP State Forest Corporation. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is open for him to agitate the surviving issues, in accordance with law.
(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice.
September 18, 2017 (cm)
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents have fully complied with the directions given in CWP No. 6069 of 2010.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Babu Ram versus Divisional Manager, HP State Forest CorporationReferred¶5
Babu Ram versus Divisional Manager, HP State Forest Corporation
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Babu Ram
Divisional Manager, HP State Forest Corporation
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
