Vijay Kumar Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2128 HP

                                          1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                                            .
                                                  CWP No. 9972 of 2012





                              Date of Decision: 16.03.2021
______________________________________________________________________





Vijay Kumar Sharma                                    ....Petitioner.

                             Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others                                                    .....Respondents.





Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.


For the petitioner:                               Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with
                                                  Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate.

For the respondents:                              M/s Dinesh Thakur and Sanjeev Sood,
                                                  Additional Advocate Generals, with M/s


                                                  Kamal Kant Chandel and Divya Sood,
                                                  Deputy    Advocate   Generals,    for
                                                  respondent No. 1.




                                                  None for respondent No. 2.





                                                  Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Senior Advocate,
                                                  with Mr. Rohit, Advocate, for respondent
                                                  No. 3.





Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):

When this case was taken up for consideration, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of

relief (a) prayed for in the petition, the same can be disposed of by

directing respondents No. 2 and 3 to take a time bound decision on the

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

representation/One Time Settlement request made by the petitioner, as is

.

contained in Annexure P­1 with the petition.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, without

going into the factual matrix involved in the petition and respective

contentions of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is ordered to

be closed, but with direction to the respondents that in case till date no

decision has been taken on One Time Settlement request made by the

petitioner, as is contained in Annexure P­1, addressed to respondent No.

2, then decision on the same be taken positively on or before 15 th April,

2021. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be given an

opportunity of being heard, if so desired. Miscellaneous applications, if

any, also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge March 16, 2021

(bhupender)