A single judge dismissed a petition for a direction to decide a representation within 8 weeks. No substantive legal proposition was laid down.
Competent Authority to decide representation Annexure P-2 within 8 weeks and pass a speaking order.
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:8323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 9785 of 2024 Decided on : 11.09.2024
Kavita Sharma
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
…Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate, vice Ms. Archana Dutt,Advocate. For the respondents : 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 petitioner has filed representation Annexure P-2 with regard to the issues raised in the petition, but the same has not been
decided by the Authority concerned till date.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2024:HHC:8323
of with the direction that let representation Annexure P-2 of the petitioner be decided by the Competent Authority, in the light of the averments made therein, 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 11, 2024
(Shivank Thakur)
Kavita Sharma
State of Himachal Pradesh
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
