The court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn upon application by the petitioner's counsel, who sought permission to withdraw after a practitioner change was clarified. No substantive legal issues were adjudicated.
The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.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
CWPOA No. 6485 of 2020
Date of decision: 5.12.2023
Rajeev Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners. Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr.Nipun Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General, alongwith Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Additional Advocate General.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
Mr.Nipun Sharma, Advocate is still in practice and the information supplied on previous date was based on misinformation.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge. 5th December, 2023 (Keshav)
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
Rajeev Kumar
State of H.P.
Vivek Singh Thakur
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
