A writ petition filed under Article 226 was permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner. The High Court dismissed the petition accordingly and vacated any interim orders.
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.
2024:HHC:6463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 1579 of 2021 Decided on 06th August 2024
Dr. Arun Chandan
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
…Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )
Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on
record instructions as per the last order passed by the Court and the same stands perused.
2
2024:HHC:6463
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
August 06, 2024 (Vinod)
Dr. Arun Chandan
State of Himachal Pradesh
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
