CWP No. 1169 of 2002 · Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of in view of the observations
Provisions considered
- Electricity Act, 2003 s. 26(6)
Judgment
Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for the respondents. A fair offer has been made by Mr. Dushyant Dadwal that his client is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of Rs.45,000/- as assessed on the basis of the appellate order. Mr. Shrawan Dogra prays for and is granted two weeks(cid:146) time to seek the instructions, more particularly after taking into consideration provisions of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. List on November 2, 2007. October 05, 2007 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. CWP No. 880 of 2007.
05.10.2007 Present: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for the respondents. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. October 05, 2007 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. CWP No. 894 of 2007.
05.10.2007 Present: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for the respondents. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. October 05, 2007 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
05.10.2007 Present: Mr. Bipin Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. CWP No. 244 of 2001. Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate General with Mr. M.A. Khan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate vice counsel for respondent No.3. The respondents are directed to produce the entire record with regard to the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1980. List on October 24, 2007. October 05, 2007 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
05.10.2007 Present: None for the petitioner. CWP No. 1055 of 2006. Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate General with Mr. M.A. Khan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No1, 2 and 4. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.3. List next week. October 05, 2007 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. CWP No. 849 of 2007.
05.10.2007 Present: Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel for the respondents. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. October 05, 2007 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
05.10.2007 Present: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. CWP No. 510 of 2007. Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate General with Mr. M.A. Khan, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. Pursuant to order dated 12th September, 2007 petitioner has filed the supplementary affidavit giving therein the details of the representation made to the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer on 16th May, 2007. The respondent No.1 is directed to file reply to the same and also to apprise the Court whether the conciliation proceedings have commenced after the representation made on 16th May, 2007 or not. If the conciliation proceedings have not commenced, the same shall commence within a period of three weeks from today and the State Government will be apprised of the same. The needful be done within a period of three weeks. List on November 6, 2007. October 05, 2007 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
05.10.2007 Present: Mr. Praveen Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. CWP No. 365 of 2006. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate General with Mr. M.A. Khan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.2 and 3. CMP No.2598 of 2007: Notice. The learned Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and prays for and is granted two weeks(cid:146) time to file the reply. List thereafter. October 05, 2007 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
05.10.2007 Present: Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate for the petitioner. CWP No. 127 of 2005. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents. Mr. Sandeep Sharma prays for and is granted two weeks(cid:146) time to produce the entire record as directed on 27th September, 2007. List on October 29, 2007. October 05, 2007 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
05.10.2007 Present: Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. CWP No. 43 of 2001. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for L.Rs. 1(a) to 1(c) of deceased respondent No.1. Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate General with Mr. M.A. Khan, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.7. With the consent of the parties, the order dated 19th August, 1999 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Himachal Pradesh is quashed and set aside. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings is directed to decide the matter afresh by a speaking order. To avoid delay, the parties are directed to appear before him on November 8,
Operative part
2007. The writ petition is disposed of in view of the observations made hereinabove with no order as to costs. October 05, 2007 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. RSA No.176 of 1982.
05.10.2007 Present: Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. October 05, 2007 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
05.10.2007 Present: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. CWP No. 710 of 2007. Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate for the respondents. Rejoinder has been filed. Mr. Rahul Mahajan submits that his client has not concealed any material facts while seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and this fact can be verified if the respondents are directed to produce the record. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to produce the record including the application submitted by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment after the death of his brother. List on October 23, 2007. October 05, 2007 (sck) (Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of in view of the observations
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Electricity Act, 2003 — s. 26(6).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.