Tarlok Chand Mehra vs State Of H.P. & Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 17205 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8237 of 2023 Date of Decision: 31.10.2023 _______________________________________________________

.

Tarlok Chand Mehra .......Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & another ... Respondents _______________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Learned counsel representing the petitioner states that

his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued

to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in

light of judgment dated 7th July, 2022 passed by Division Bench of this

Court in CWP No. 842 of 2017, titled State of Himachal Pradesh

and others versus Sardari Lal and another alongwith connected

matters, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate

General representing the respondents is not averse to aforesaid

innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

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

2. Having perused the averments contained in the petition

as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied

upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition

.

already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in the

aforesaid judgment and as such, no prejudice, if any, would be

caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to

consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment

supra.

3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition

is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and

decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra

expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to

say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant

order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and

pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the

petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if

he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 31, 2023 (shankar)