Single-judge court held that directions regarding time-bound decision on petitioners' representations await adjudication of a linked Review Petition in matter decided jointly with Taj Mohammad case.
Direction to decide representations within three weeks after adjudication of the linked 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:7074
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 8379 of 2024 Decided on : 20.08.2024
Kulbir Kaur and others
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another.
…Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners : Mr. Rocky, 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 petitioners 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:7074
03.08.2023. He further submits that the petitioners shall be content in case the respondents/competent Authority are directed to decide the representations filed by the petitioners, appended with the petition as Annexure P-4 (Colly), in a time bound manner, in light of judgment ibid.
with the direction that after the adjudication of the said Review Petition, the representations of the petitioners, appended with this petition as Annexure P-4 (Colly), 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 petitioners must wait for the disposal of a pending Review Petition linked to CWP No.2004 of 2017 before their representations are decided.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of H.P. and othersReferred¶14
CWP No.2004 of 2017, Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of H.P. and others
Kulbir Kaur and others
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
