SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(HP) 3

SURINDER SARUP, KAMLESH SHARMA
SAROJ SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Sanjay Karol, Advocate General, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, A.C.J.—In the above writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the Notification dated 15.5.1998 (Annexure P-I) whereby in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20 of the Himachal Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act’), the Notification dated 17.12.1997 (Annexure P-B) purported to have been issued under Section 3 of the H.P. State Commission for Women Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 22 of 97) was rescinded.

2. By the Notification dated 17.12.1997 (Annexure P-B), the Governor, Himachal Pradesh was pleased to constitute the H.P. State Commission for Women of which the petitioner was appointed as Chairperson besides two other ladies as Members. Assailing the Notification dated 15.5.1998 (Annexure P-I), the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: “(i) That the impugned Annexure P-I, dated 15th May, 1998 may be quashed and set aside; (ii) That the respondents may be directed to enforce/implement Annexure P-B, dated the 17th December, 1997 in letter and spirit and to permit the petitioner to discharge the duties of Chairperson of the H.P. State Commission for Women for a period of three years; (iii) That












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top