Sheela Devi v. State of H.P & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly alongwith all
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly along with all pending applications.”
Judgment
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: For the respondents: Ms. Neelam Kaplas, Advocate. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General and Mr. Additional Pushpinder Advocate General. Jaswal, Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral). By way of this execution petition, the petitioner is seeking the execution of the judgment passed in her favour in CWP No. 7785 of 2011, titled Sheela Devi vs. State of HP and Others, decided on 25th May 2012, which writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench in the following terms:- “It is contended that the dispute involved in this writ petition has already been determined by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 60 of 2006, titled as Jagdev Katoch versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on
20.06.2008. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2
At this stage, Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General, stated at the Bar that they have assailed the said decision by the medium of LPA No. 23 of 2009, which is still pending before this Court. His statement is taken on record.
In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition in light of the judgment (supra), shall abide by the decision to be made by this Court in LPA No. 23 of 2009.
Operative part
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly along with all pending applications.”
2. Learned Advocate General has informed the court that a perusal of the judgment passed in favour of the petitioner would demonstrate that the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench was pleased to observe that as the petitioner was relying upon the judgment passed in CWP 60 of 2006, titled Jagdev Katoch vs. State of HP and Others and a Letters Patent Appeal was pending against the said adjudication, therefore, the writ of the petitioner shall abide by the decision made in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 23 of 2009.
3. Learned Advocate General thereafter, by referring to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA Number 23 of 2009 and other connected matters, took the Court through Para- 7 thereof and submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to hold in Para 7 that LPA Number 23 of 2009 and other 3 connected LPAs stood allowed. Learned Advocate General submitted that as the judgment passed in the case of the petitioner was to abide by the judgment in the LPA, and as in the LPA the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to set aside the judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge in Jagdev Katoch’s case, there is neither any verdict in favor of the petitioner nor there is any executable cause in favor of the petitioner.
4. Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw these proceedings at this stage, with liberty to approach the court afresh by way of appropriate proceedings in case the need so arises. Though this is opposed by the learned Advocate General, but the proceedings are allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to avail such legal remedies as available to the petitioner in accordance with law, subject to all just exceptions. 13th August, 2026. (jai) (Ajay Mohan Goel) 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 accordingly alongwith all
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 25 May 2012. The bench was AJAY MOHAN GOEL.
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.