JAGDISH CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, by means of this petition, has basically prayed that Respondent No. 3 be directed to renew the contract entered with him for operating a bus and has further prayed that Respondents 1&2 be directed to intervene and ensure that Respondent No. 3 complies with the promises made by it in letter and spirit.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Respondent No. 3, M/s. Ambuja Cement Ltd., set up a Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes cement Industry at Darlaghat. Land of various villagers including that of the Petitioner and his family was acquired.

(3.) THE Petitioner alleges that since he is a land looser, his contract should have been renewed. In the petition, it is also alleged that though the contract with the Petitioner has been rescinded two other buses are still being plied and these buses are of persons who are not even land loosers.