SAKIN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:

(2.) Despite repeated opportunity, no reply has been filed by the respondents, however, before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is ordered to be considered and decided in light of the judgment dtd. 18/12/2018, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2384 of 2018, State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors v. Sh. Matwar Singh and Another, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner.

(3.) Having perused judgment sought to be relied upon vis-'-vis issue raised in the instant petition, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment and as such, no prejudice if any, would be caused to either of the parties if case of the petitioner is ordered to be considered in light of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court.