Petitioner challenged an order already revoked, rendering the current petition infructuous due to subsequent developments.
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:15007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.1880 of 2024 Date of Decision: 18.12.2024
M/s Surgineeds
……...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals & Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State.
Mr. Yash Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Mr. T.S.Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
It is not in dispute that order laid challenge in the instant proceedings already stands revoked, if it is so, present petition has
been rendered infructuous on account of subsequent developments. Ordered accordingly. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to
2
file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law qua the
surviving grievance.
December 18, 2024 (sunil)
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge
2
M/s Surgineeds
State of Himachal Pradesh
Respondent No. 3
Respondent No. 4
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
