Disposed

Sukh Dev Sharma and Others v. Union of India and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Dec 2024CWP/1425/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, on 16.12.2024, disposed of a writ petition challenging a Government notification under Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after the Governor withdrew the impugned notification, rendering the petition infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Relief prayed for stands granted as the impugned notification has been withdrawn, rendering the writ petition infructuous.

Sukh Dev Sharma and Others Vs Union… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 1425/2019

¶3

Decided on:16.12.2024

¶4

Sukhdev Sharma & Ors. …Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. & Ors.

.…Respondents.

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the petitioners: Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate vice Mr. Aditya Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶12

The matter has been listed today on the basis of

¶13

mention memo made by respondent No.3. It has accordingly been taken up.

¶14

2 . This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following

¶15

substantive relief:-

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

“ A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Himachal Govt. Notification NO. TPT-F(4)-5/2017 dated 11.10.2018 as published in the Himachal Pradesh Gazette dated 12.10.2018 (Annexure P/8) whereby finally approved scheme namely ‘The Himachal Pradesh Transport Services of the State Transport Undertaking Scheme’ 2017, has been published under Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being wholly illegal, void, contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act as well as the spirit and object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.”

¶19

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed on record notification dated 22.10.2024 and on that basis submits that the relief prayed for by the petitioners stands granted to them and the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous. The said notification reads as under:-

¶20

“Whereas, this department vide notification No. TPT-F(4)5(2017 dated 12th October, 2017 had notified the draft Himachal Pradesh Transport Services of the State Transport Undertaking Scheme, 2017 and published in the Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh (Extra ordinary) on 12-10-2017, which was finalized/notified on 11.10.2018 and published in the Rajpatra on 12.10.2018.

¶21

Now, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to withdraw the above notifications of Himachal Pradesh Transport Services of the State Transport Undertaking Scheme, 2017.”

¶22

As per above notification dated 22.10.2024, previous

¶23

draft notification dated 12.10.2017, which was finalized/notified on

¶24

¶25

11.10.2018 and published in the Rajpatra on 12.10.2018, has been

¶26

withdrawn.

¶27

In view of above, relief prayed for by the petitioners stands granted to them. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶28

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶29

16^th December, 2024(rohit)

Sukh Dev Sharma and Others v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukh Dev Sharma and Others v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratibha Kumari and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Kuldeep Singh Vs Rohan Chand Thakur

Luxmi Dutt Vs Dalip Singhy Alias Dulab Singh through His Lrs Sumitra Devi and Others

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another

Sahil and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Suresh Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others