Petition was rendered infructuous as an office letter dated 10.07.2019 indicated the petitioners' grievance had already been redressed. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No. 6819 of 2020
Date of decision: 20.04.2024
Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H. P. & Ors. …Respondents Co ram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A. G. with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy. A.Gs. for respondents-State. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
Reply is stated to have been filed, however, the same is not on record. Registry is directed to trace and place the same on record.
2
indicate that the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed, thereby, rendering the instant petition as infructuous.
having been rendered infructuous.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge
(Sushil Kukreja) 20th April, 2024 Judge (sanjeev)
Madan Lal & Ors.
State of H. P. & Ors.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Sushil Kukreja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
