Milkhi Ram Sharma v. State of Hp and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The Chief Justice observed that the respondents had evicted Nomads/Gujjars from a designated Wildlife Area/Pong Dam Lake Wildlife Sanctuary following the petitioner's representation. The PIL was closed with a hope for future vigilance.
What did the court decide?
The PIL is closed with an observation that the eviction of Nomads/Gujjars had been carried out by the respondents.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPIL No. 41 of 2023 Decided on: 6th October, 2023
____________________________________________________ Milkhi Ram Sharma ....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others …..Respondents. ____________________________________________________ Coram_ Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Arsh Rattan and Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate Generals for respondents no. 1 to 8. Mr. N.K Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, for respondent no.9.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (oral)
On 13.09.2023, this Court had asked the Additional
Advocate General to inform the Court as to what action was taken by
respondents no.2,3,7 and 8 on the representation (Annexure P-5)
made by the petitioner to them on 13.06.2023, followed by a reminder
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Milkhi Ram Sharma
- respondent
State of H.P
Coram
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Himachal Pradesh HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- CWPIL/41/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court