Disposed

Joginder Singh v. Union of India and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Dec 2023CWP/2506/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An election in a writ petition where the High Court dispatched the offending clause concerning the petitioner to proceed below and directed the lower authority descendants to lay assistance within three months following the receipt of such representation by speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file fresh representation to Respondent No. 3; Respondent No. 3 directed to decide within three months.

Joginder Singh Vs Union of India and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 2506 of 2020.

¶3

Date of decision: 8th December, 2023.

¶4

Joginder Singh ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ....Respondents.
*Coram:*
*The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.*
Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

For the Petitioner: Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. I.N. Mehta, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy. A.G. For Respondents No.4 to 6 : Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondent No.7: Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate.

¶6

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents No.2 and 3 have taken an objection in the reply that the petitioner has not approached respondent No.3 in the first instance and has proceeded to approach this Court directly by way of instant petition. He further submits that though the objection so raised on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 is contested by the petitioner, however, in order to avoid unnecessary controversy, the petitioner will be contend 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

…2…

¶9

at this stage, in case he is permitted to file fresh representation to respondent No.3 and the said respondent is directed to consider and decide the said representation in time bound manner.

¶10

Prayer being innocuous is not opposed.

¶11

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation to respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the representation so filed within three months from the receipt of such representation by passing a speaking order. Needless to say that, in case, the petitioner is found eligible for the relief as prayed for in the instant petition, the respondents shall grant the benefits available to the petitioner in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶12

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶13

8^th December, 2023. (jai)

Joginder Singh v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Singh v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Himland Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Afzal Khan Vs State of Hp

Rohit Sirsa Vs State of Hp

Ishan Vs Municipal Council Kullu

Shanta Lal Chopra Vs Kamla Devi

Kali Dass Vs Shobha Ram