High Court at Shimla dismissed five writ petitions filed against HPSEB in default for want of prosecution as petitioners failed to appear despite notice.
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 Nos.652, 653, 656, 657,735/2010 Decided on: 16.09.2023.
| CWP No.652/2010 | |
|---|---|
| Jagdish Chand | ...…Petitioner |
| Versus HPSEB |
……Respondent |
| CWP No.653/2010 | |
| Hans Raj | ...…Petitioner |
| Versus HPSEB |
……Respondent |
| CWP No.656/2010 | |
| Anil Kumar Sharma | ...…Petitioner |
| Versus HPSEB |
……Respondent |
| CWP No.657/2010 | |
| Gosain Dutt | ...…Petitioner |
| Versus HPSEB |
……Respondent |
| CWP No.735/2010 | |
| Sunil Kumar | ...…Petitioner |
| Versus HPSEB |
……Respondent |
| ……………………………………………… Coram |
……………………………… |
| Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. | |
| Whether approved for reporting?1 |
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
2
For the petitioner(s) : None.
For the respondent(s) : Mr Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Though as per office report, Court notices issued to the petitioners in these petitions stand duly served, however, none appeared on their behalf. It appears that the petitioners are not interested to pursue the matters. Hence, the petitions are dismissed in default and for want of prosecution. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
16th September 2023 (rohit)
Jagdish Chand
Hans Raj
Anil Kumar Sharma
Gosain Dutt
Sunil Kumar
HPSEB
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
