Shri Inder Singh vs At This Stage
2021 Latest Caselaw 2553 HP

COPC No. 260 of 2020

05.04.2021 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

.

M/s Sudhir Bhatnagar, Arvind Sharma, Dinesh Thakur & Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate Generals, with M/s Kamal Kant Chandel and Divya Sood, Deputy Advocate Generals, for

respondent No. 1.

Mr. Pranay Partap Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

COPC No. 260 of 2020 & CMP No. 4194 of

Learned counsel for the respondents submit that

the directions passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in

judgment dated 04.12.2018, CWP No. 960 of 2018, titled as

Shri Inder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another

now stand complied with in letter and spirit.

This is disputed by learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner, on the ground that the so called agreement entered

into between the State of Himachal Pradesh and the State of

Punjab effectively does not comes into existence till it is duly

published in the Gazettes by both the respective Governments.

At this stage, learned Senior Counsel points out

that in terms of the previous order passed by the Court, both

the respondents/contemnors stood directed by the Court to

remain present in the Court in person.

Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh informs the Court that as

respondent No. 2 has been tested COVID positive, it is for this

reason that he is not present in the Court. He states that an

application to this effect has already been filed in the Court,

i.e., CMP No. 4194 of 2021 alongwith which a report of the

applicant/respondent No. 2 has also been appended.

.

Keeping in view the averments made in the

application as well as the report appended therewith, the

prayer for exemption from personal presence as far as

respondent No. 2 is concerned, is allowed. Said respondent

need not remain present in the Court unless expressly ordered

by the Court afresh. Application stands disposed.

At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General

submits that as on 26.02.2021, direction was to the effect that

either the judgment be complied with or the respondents to

remain present in the Court. Respondent No. 1 is not present

in the Court today, as the judgment has been complied with in

letter and spirit. According to him, said respondent shall

otherwise remain present in the Court as and when directed.

His statement is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the respondents also informed

the Court that the steps have already been initiated to publish

the Reciprocal Transport Agreement so entered into between

the two States in their respective Gazettes.

As prayed for, list before the appropriate Bench on

3rd May, 2021, to enable the respondents to file a short affidavit

as to whether the Reciprocal Transport Agreement has been

published in the Gazettes or not. Respondents need not be

present in person, unless directed otherwise.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 05, 2021 (bhupender)