The single-judge bench disposed of a writ petition not pressed by the appellant where the earlier judgment was complied with. No substantive legal issue was adjudicated.
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.
1
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ex. Petition No. 72 of 2017 Date of decision: 10th August, 2017 Bir Singh Mehta Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents ______________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting1 :
For the appellant : Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General ______________________________________________________ Per Sanjay Karol, A.C.J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition for the reason that the judgment, dated 1st January, 2014 (Annexure E-1), passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 9456 of 2013, titled Bir Singh Mehta Vs. State of H.P. and others stands complied with.
( Sanjay Karol ), Acting Chief Justice 10th August, 2017(K) ( Sandeep Sharma ), Judge
1 Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?
Bir Singh Mehta
State of H.P.
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
