Disposed

Ankita Shandil v. Director Himfed Ltd. and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Oct 2023CWP/5925/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coordinate Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's case expediently following the principles laid down in Nitin Kumar vs. State of H.P.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; respondents directed to consider petitioner's case within four weeks in light of Nitin Kumar judgment and pass detailed speaking order.

Ankita Shandil Vs Director Him… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.5925 of 2023

¶3

Date of Decision: 9.10.2023

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Ankita Shandil …….Petitioner Versus Director HIMFED Limited & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case prayer made in the instant petition is considered and decided by the competent authority in terms of judgment dated 22^nd August 2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 1077 of 2019, Nitin Kumar vs. State of H.P. and another . Learned counsel representing the respondents is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner.

¶6

2. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and

¶7

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

¶9

as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment.

¶10

3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Nitin Kumar’s case (supra) , expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, she would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. All pending applications stand disposed

¶11

of.

¶12

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶13

October 09,2023 (shankar)

Ankita Shandil v. Director Himfed Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankita Shandil v. Director Himfed Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khayala Ram Sharma Vs Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Another

Devi Singh Vs State of Hp

Kishori Lal Vs State of Hp and Another

Sant Ram Vs Hpseb and Others

Nitin Sharma Vs Prem Prakash Dehloo and Another

Dinesh Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Others