The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed an undefended petition. The Court observed that directions issued in a 2014 judgment had been fully complied with, clarifying that such compliance is not a binding precedent.
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 Ex. Petition No. 76 of 2017.
Date of decision: 18th September, 2017.
Khub Chand …..Petitioner. Versus State of HP 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 reporting ?1
For the petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with M/s Anup Rattan, Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate.
______________________________________________ Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
From the affidavits placed on record by the State,
quite apparently, which fact is not disputed, directions issued by this Court, in the judgment dated 23rd September, 2014, passed in CWP No. 5128 of 2014, stand fully complied with. Accordingly, the present petition is not pressed and is dismissed as such, alongwith pending applications, if any.
(Sanjay Karol ) Acting Chief Justice.
September, 18, 2017. (Sandeep Sharma) (cm Thakur) Judge.
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CWP No. 5128 of 2014Referred¶10
Khub Chand
State of HP
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
