The court referred to a Division Bench judgment in Taj Mohammad's case. Pending a Review Petition in that matter, the court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation within three weeks of the Review Petition's adjudication.
Direction to decide representation within three weeks after adjudication of pending Review Petition.
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:7080
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 8338 of 2024 Decided on : 20.08.2024
Kamal Kumar
…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. Ajay Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General and Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )
Issue notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned
Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer made herein is squarely covered by 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
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2024:HHC:7080
03.08.2023. He further submits that the petitioner shall be content in case the respondents/competent Authority are directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner, appended with the petition as Annexure P-4, in a time bound manner, in light of judgment ibid.
with the direction that after the adjudication of the said Review Petition, the representation of the petitioner, appended with this petition as Annexure P-4, be decided within a period of three weeks thereafter. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
August 20, 2024 (Shivank Thakur)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's representation should be decided within a time-bound manner in light of the precedential judgment in Taj Mohammad's case?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of H.P. and othersReferred¶15
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
Kamal Kumar
State of Himachal Pradesh and another
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
