Petitioners sought disposal of their representations by the Competent Authority in terms of a prior Division Bench judgment of the High Court. The court, without expressing any opinion on merits, directed a speaking order on the representations within eight weeks and disposed of pending miscellaneous applications.
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:9691
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
| CWP No.569 of 2024 Decided on: 14.10.2024 |
|
|---|---|
| Ritesh Verma & others | … Petitioners |
| Versus | |
| State of H.P. & another | … Respondents |
| Coram |
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1
____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
When the case was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that interest of justice would be served in case representations made by the petitioners be decided by the Competent Authority in light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 alongwith connected matters, titled Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 03.08.2023.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 alongwith connected matters, titled Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 03.08.2023, by passing a speaking order, within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
October 14, 2024 (Rishi)
ER KUMARBHUPEND Digitally signed by BHUPENDER KUMARDN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=04d8bcd7412dcb18b7b081df02fb3b89ecc4a0c8f8a66ab97285dc56e62d41fe, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=2ccc91b5122501da0ce3678b0e2b7bd5fa9b09937769da5501e1f4e7ad448bc5, CN=BHUPENDER KUMARReason: I am approving this document with my legally binding signatureLocation: Date: 2024-10-15 11:30:03
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Competent Authority should decide the petitioners' representations in light of the Division Bench judgment in Taj Mohammad's case?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of H.P. and othersRelied on
CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 03.08.2023
Ritesh Verma & others
State of H.P. & another
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
