The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition due to intervening developments. The prayer was allowed and the petition dismissed as withdrawn.
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
CWP No. 359 of 2022. Date of decision : 5.7.2023. Raj Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with and Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of intervening development, he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition. Prayer being innocuous is allowed. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Pending applications if any also stand disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge.
(Satyen Vaidya) 5th July, 2023 Judge (kck)
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Raj Singh
State of H.P.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
