Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7616 (HP)

RAGHUNANDAN GOEL v. STATE

CWP/2787/2008 · 2025-07-03

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2787 of 2008 a/w CWP No.2790 of 2008 Decided on 03rd July 2025 CWP No.2787 of 2008 Sh. Raghunandan Goel …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents ______________________________________________________ CWP No.2790 of 2008 Smt. Archana Goel …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s), in both the petitions. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3, in both the petitions-State. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5, in both the petitions. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- 2 “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued and orders dated 27.06.2008 passed by respondent No.2 and orders dated 28.11.2008 in Appeal No.1/2008 passed by respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside and further a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to countersign the permits of the present petitioner forwarded by the Uttar Pradesh Government vide their letter and allow the petitioner to run its buses ion the route in question as per provisions of law, to secure the ends of law and justice.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the case filed by the present petitioners in the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) is still pending, these proceedings be closed but with the observation that in case after the adjudication of the said writ petitions needs to arises, the petitioners be given liberty to move an appropriate application for the revival of these petitions. 3. Accordingly, these petitions are closed as disposed of with liberty as prayed for. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 03, 2025 (Vinod)