Himachal Pradesh High Court
_______________________________________________________ vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 27 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.11565 of 2024
Date of Decision: 27.05.2025
_______________________________________________________
Bhima Ram .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Ms. Tamana Rana and Mr. Santosh Tomar,
Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals
and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General.
____________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Through instant petition, petitioner seeks benefit of the
decision rendered in judgment passed in CWP No. 2274 of 2024 titled
as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. decided on
28.05.2024.
2. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate
General, appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of
respondents-State. Mr. Kahol, states that since judgment passed in
Satya Devi's case has been stayed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20496 of 2024, relief, as prayed for, in the
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
instant petition cannot be allowed. Copy of an order passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court on 24.03.2025 in several connected Special
Leave Petitions, with lead case being Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Diary No. 11306 of 2025 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Vs. Inder Pal, has been made available to this Court during
proceedings of the case and same reads as under:-
"(1) Delay condoned.
(2) Let the notice be issued to the respondents(s) in all the
matters.
(3) Tag alongwith SPL(C) No. 20496 of 2024
(4) In the meantime the operation of the impugned order(s),
is/are stayed."
3. Since it is quite apparent from the aforesaid order that
mandate contained in the judgment passed in Satya Devi's case
alongwith connected matters has been stayed, prayer made in the
instant petition cannot be allowed, but with the consent of parties,
petition at hand is disposed of with a direction that benefits, if any,
flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi's case, shall abide by the
outcome of the Inder Pal's case instituted by the respondents against
the common judgment rendered in Satya Devi's case. Ordered
accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
May 27,2025
(shankar)
