Himachal Pradesh High Court
Yog Raj vs . State Of Himachal Pradesh A/W ... on 1 August, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
Yog Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh a/w connected matters.
.
CWPOA No.3573 & 5318 of 2019
01.08.2022 Present Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for petitioners No. 1 to 16,
18 to 29, 31 to 37, 39, 41 to 48, 50 to 73, 77, 79 to 83,
89 to 93, 95 to 97, 99 to 104, 106 to 108, 110 to 119 in
CWPOA No.3573 of 2019 and Mr. R.L.Chaudhary,
Advocate, for petitioners No. 4, 5, 7 to 14, 18, 22 to 25,
27 to 36, 41 to 45 in CWPOA No.5318 of 2019.
Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Advocate for petitioners No. 17,
30, 38 to 40, 49, 50, 74 to 76 78, 84 to 88, 94, 96,
98,100, 105, 109 in CWPOA No.3573 of 2019 and for
petitioners No.1, 2, 3, 6,15, 16,17, 19, 20, 21, 26, 37, 38,
39, 40, 46 in CWPOA No.5318 of 2019.
Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Narender Guleria,
Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia,
Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, for the proposed in CMP-
T No.817 of 2021 in CWPOA No.5318 of 2019.
Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate, for the proposed
applicants in CMP-T No.758 of 2021 and CMP(T)
No.1000 of 2021 in CWPOA No.5318 of 2019.
Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate, for the proposed
applicants in CMP-T No.775 of 2021 and for the
proposed applicants in CMP-T No.707 of 2021 in
CWPOA No.5318 of 2019.
CMP-T No.817 of 2021 a/w CMP-T No.758, 1000, 775,
567, 568, 628 and 707 of 2021 in CWPOA No.5318 of
Since at the time of final hearing of the case, applications
bearing CMP-T No.817 of 2021, CMP-T No.758 of 2021, CMP-T
No.1000 of 2021, CMP-T No. 775 of 2021, CMP-T No. 707 of
2021, CMP-T Nos.567 & 568 of 2021, CMP-T No.628 of 2021
seeking therein impleadment of proposed applicants could not be
taken up for consideration, the same are listed today. Learned
counsel representing the petitioners states that prayer made in the
instant applications for impleadment as petitioners cannot be
.
allowed, rather independent petitions, if any, can be filed. Learned
Additional Advocate General also states that for seeking relief, as
has been claimed in the petitions, applicants are required to file
separate petitions because facts and circumstances of each and
every case are not similar.
Consequently, in view of the above, the present
applications are disposed of, reserving liberty to the applicants to file
appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if required and
desire.
Inadvertently, name of Mr. Prashant Chaudhary,
Advocate could not be reflected in the judgment dated 19th July,
2022 passed in CWPOA No.3573 of 2019 alongwith other
connected mattes, for petitioners No. 17, 30, 38 to 40, 49, 50, 74 to
76 78, 84 to 88, 94, 96, 98,100, 105, 109 in CWPOA No.3573 of
2019 and for petitioners No.1, 2, 3, 6,15, 16,17, 19, 20, 21, 26, 37,
38, 39, 40, 46 in CWPOA No.5318 of 2019.
Accordingly, in view of the above, Registry is directed to
reflect the name of Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Advocate for
petitioners No. 17, 30, 38 to 40, 49, 50, 74 to 76 78, 84 to 88, 94, 96,
98,100, 105, 109 in CWPOA No.3573 of 2019 and for petitioners
No.1, 2, 3, 6,15, 16,17, 19, 20, 21, 26, 37, 38, 39, 40, 46 in CWPOA
No.5318 of 2019 in the memo of the judgment dated 19th July,
2022.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
1st August, 2022
(shankar)
