Petitioner sought direction to respondents to decide his pending representation per a prior Division Bench judgment. Court disposed of the writ petition directing the competent authority to decide Annexure P-5 by speaking order within 8 weeks.
Representation Annexure P-5 to be decided by competent authority via speaking order within 8 weeks.
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:8682
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 7379 of 2024 Decided on : 17.09.2024
Sahil Sharma
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another.
…Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Tijender Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondent No.1.
Ms. Kiran Lata Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )
When the case was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interest of justice would be served in case respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, appended with the petition as Annexure P-5, as expeditiously as possible, in the light of the averments made therein as well as the judgment
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2024:HHC:8682
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.
being relied upon by the petitioner, by passing a speaking order, within a period of 8 weeks’ from today, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
September 17, 2024 (Shivank Thakur)
1 issue framed by the court
Should the competent authority decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-5) in the light of the Taj Mohammad judgment?
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 alongwith connected matters, titled Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 03.08.2023
Sahil Sharma
State of Himachal Pradesh
Respondent No.2
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
