Ramesh Sharma v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. Himachal
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 Apr 2012
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti to the petitioner for production before the 5th respondent, within a period of one month from today. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 23rd April, 2012 ( Justice Dharam Chand…
Judgment
State of Himachal Pradesh through Additional Chief Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171002 2. Pradesh at Talland, Shimla 171002. 3. Chamba, H.P. 4. Managing Director, H.P State Forest Development Corporation, Shimla. H.P. 5. Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. 6. Surender Kumar Son of Sh. Nag Chand, resident of village Kherna, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, H.P presently posted at Tehsildar Churah, Tehsil churah, District Chamba, H.P. .......Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Coram
The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate. For respondents 1,2,3&5 : Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. For respondent No. 4 Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG. Mr. Jivender Katoch, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: (cid:147)That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to carry out the demarcation and to complete all other codal formalities and also enquire into the matter for delay, which particularly was due for felling 2 programme of year 2011-12 within a stipulated time period without charging any extension fee and other charges from the petitioner. (cid:148)
Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General and the counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. The Tehsildar, Tissa is also present before this Court. In the nature of the order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to refer to the factual matrix in detail. There will be a direction to the 3rd and 5th respondents to see that the demarcation is completed within a period of one month from today, in accordance with law. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, as submitted in detail in the writ petition, it is made clear that no fee for extension shall be charged from the petitioner, since the extension of time is not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner.
Operative part
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti to the petitioner for production before the 5th respondent, within a period of one month from today. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 23rd April, 2012 ( Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary ), (rana/pc) Judge .
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 23 Apr 2012.
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.