Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: himachal pradesh Page 9 of about 4,413 results (0.234 seconds)

Sep 27 2012 (HC)

Dharmender Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Principal Secre ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Oral: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. By means of the present writ petition, following reliefs have been claimed: i) That impugned communication dated 20.10.2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That contract of the petitioner may kindly be renewed as the post is still lying vacant as other similar situated persons have been allowed to continue. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. iii) That the respondents may be directed that after re-engaging the petitioner, he may be given all consequential benefits. 2. The factual position as emerges from the perusal of the record is that the petitioner was appointed as driver on contract basis in the year 2003 in the office of 3rd respondent initially for a period of one year renewed subsequently on year to year basis. He was deputed with the vehicle attached to the office of Chief Medical Officer, Haroli, District Una. On 16/17.10.2006, a criminal case under Section 307 and 308, IPC read with Sectio...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 2012 (HC)

Smt. Nitu Bal Vs. State of H.P. Through Secretary (Panchayati Raj) to ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Oral: Whether an authorized officer to hear an election petition is authorized under law to recount the votes and declare that another person who has secured the majority of votes has been elected, is the moot question arising for consideration in this case. 2. Sections 174, 175 and 175(A) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, provide for procedure. The provisions read as follows:- 174. Decision of the authorized officer.- (1) Where an election petition has not been dismissed under section 165, the authorized officer shall inquire into the election petition and at the conclusion of the inquiry shall make an order- (a) dismissing the election petition; or 1[(b) declaring the election of all or any of the elected persons to be void; or] 1[(c) declaring the election of all or any of the elected persons to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected.] (2) At the time of marking an order under sub-section (1) the authorized officer shall also make an order,- ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 2012 (HC)

H.S. Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Sanjay Karol, J Oral: 1. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.8.2012 passed by Special Judge (Forests), Shimla in case No.2-S/7 of 2009, titled as State of H.P. versus H. S. Thakur and others. In terms of the impugned order, petitioner stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code alone, whereas co-accused stand charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 468, 415/420, 471, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, one of the accused person has also been charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Before I deal with the legal issue, facts leading to the filing of challan before the trial Court, as noticed by the Court, are reproduced herein below: I have gone through the Charge-sheet and other documents. As per prosecution case Sh. H.S. Thakur was Registering and Licencing Authority (Rural), Shimla and Sh. Kamal Kumar Rohal was ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 2012 (HC)

Vijay Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Kurian Joseph, C.J. 1. The validity of Section 3-A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the validity of the proceedings initiated under the Act for eviction of the petitioners are the subject matter of these writ petitions. All the petitioners have been lessees of Brigade Bazaar in Yol Cantonment in District Kangra. Though, there is dispute on the nature of lease, the fact remains that all of them have been in occupation of the premises. They were all issued notices in the year 2009 under Section 4 of the Act on various grounds including the ground that the land is required for military use. The petitioners had submitted their reply(s), as well. However, without passing any final order under Section 5 of the Act, they were issued notice under Section 3-A of the Act. 2. Section 3-A of the Act, reads as follows: 3-A. Eviction from temporary occupation.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 4 or section 5, if the estate officer, after making s...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 2012 (HC)

Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

Court : Himachal Pradesh

1. By means of the present writ petition, the following reliefs have been claimed: 1. That the respondents may be directed to favourably consider the case of the petitioner for the appointment as clerk on compassionate ground with time bound schedule. 2. That the respondents may be directed to appoint petitioner on compassionate ground. 2. The complaint is that the father of petitioner late Shri Lashkari Ram died in harness on 26.12.2003 while working as Drawing Master, however, irrespective of his having made an application for employment on compassionate ground under the policy framed by the 1st respondent, he has not yet been given the appointment irrespective of the direction of erstwhile Administrative Tribunal dated August 7, 2007 in O.A. (M) No. 145/2007, Annexure P-4. 3. It is seen from the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents that virtually there is no denial to the factual position, such as, father of the petitioner having died in harness while workin...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 2012 (HC)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another Vs. Ramesh Chand

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. The challenge herein is to the judgment dated 4th July, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.7464 of 2010, whereby award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh on 30.7.2010 in reference No. I.D. 301/2004, has been upheld to the extent of reinstatement of the respondent-workman with seniority over and above the five workmen engaged afresh in the year 1994 and 100 in the year 1995 i.e. after his disengagement whereas to the extent of award of back wages quashed. 2. The legality and validity of the impugned award has been assailed on the ground, inter alia, that there was no tangible evidence produced by the respondent-workman before the Tribunal below and as such, the award as a whole, should have been quashed and set aside. Further, according to the petitioner-company, since the respondent-workman was a casual labourer and not engaged through employment exchange and rather his engagement was a back d...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 2012 (HC)

Hem Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Surinder Singh, J (Oral). The appellant has challenged the judgment of his conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Shimla under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as also under Section 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, whereby, he was sentenced to undergo the imprisonment under each of the Sections as follows:-Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.Section 61 (1) (a) of the Excise ActRigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In short, the prosecution story as unfolded by the prosecution witnesses, can be stated thus. PW-15 ASI Vijay Kumar was posted in Special Invest...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2012 (HC)

Chuhru Ram and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J. The order dated 28.4.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Chamba, H.P. in Sessions trial No.12/12/2011 framing charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC against petitioners has been assailed in the revision. 2. The further facts are that on the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Kartar Singh initially a case under Sections 279, 338 IPC was registered against the petitioners on the basis of which FIR dated 17.3.2010 was recorded. Kartar Singh was got medically examined. 3. The supplementary statement of Kartar Singh was recorded and the case was converted into Section 307 IPC. The prosecution case is that on 17.3.2010 police received secret information that Alto car and Mohindra Pick-Up were coming from Chamba side carrying some articles. A naka was put up at Sukdain Bain. Mohindra Pick-Up No.HP-73-0625 came in high speed. It was signaled to stop. instead of stopping the vehicle the accused negligently and rashly negotiated a turn in suc...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 2012 (HC)

Sat Pal and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Ho ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Surinder Singh, J. 1. Both these appeals are arising from the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, in Sessions Trial No.52 of 2010, decided on 2.4.2012/16.4.2012, whereby the appellants herein to be referred as the accused persons were sentenced under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- each with the default clause, for allegedly keeping in possession 404 grams of Charas in the recovered stuff of 1 Kg. 500 grams. 2. The case unfolded by the prosecution and accepted by the learned trial Court is that on 27.5.2010, PW8 Head Constable Parshotam Ram was on patrolling duty and detection of crime. Around 4.00 PM, they were present at a place known as Chiladhar, they spotted both the accused persons coming from the side of village Jibhi. On seeing the police party both of them got perplexed and tried to escape. The police beca...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 2012 (HC)

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Rajesh Dhiman and Another

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 28.12.2002, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in NDPS Case No. 03 of 2002, whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 09.01.2002, ASI Purshottam Dutt (PW-8), Constable Sunder Singh (PW-1), Constable Bhup Singh (PW-2) and Sh. Bhopal Singh (PW-7) went to Shamshar for traffic checking. At about 1:00 p.m., a motorcycle came from Kandughat side. The motorcycle was not bearing any registration number. The motorcycle was driven by Gulshan Kumar and pillion rider was Rajesh Dhiman. The pillion rider of the motorcycle was carrying a bag on his back. The motorcycle was signaled to stop. The documents of the motorcycle were demanded. The accused became frightened. In the meanti...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //