Himachal Pradesh Digest: 15 to 31 July 2023

Nominal Index

Ajay Kumar Sood Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others
2023 Stpl(Web) 39 HP : Government Contract – Non Payment Of Admitted Bills

Balak Ram And Others Vs. Nhai
2023 Stpl(Web) 55 HP : Arbitration – Deemed Consent For Extending Arbitration Period 

Churagu Devi (Deceased) Through Her Lrs And Ors.  Vs. Ram Lal
2023 Stpl(Web) 37 HP : Review – No Error Apparent On Record

Devmani Vs. State & Ors.
2023 Stpl(Web) 56 HP : Civil Procedure – Amendment Of Plaint

Dinesh Sharma Vs. Kamal Jit Kaur & Another
2023 Stpl(Web) 58 HP : Dishonour Of Cheque – Acquittal Set Aside As Presumption Not Rebutted

Gaurav Sharma Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others
2023 Stpl(Web) 38 HP : Election – Rejection Of Nomination

Harmohini Vs. State Of H.P. And Others
2023 Stpl(Web) 36 HP : Service Law – Adverse Entries In Acr

Headmaster, The Lawrence School Vs. Pawan Kumar
2023 Stpl(Web) 35 HP : Evidence – Verification/Comparison With Admitted Signature

Indorama India Pvt. Ltd & Another Vs. State Of HP & Others
2023 Stpl(Web) 54 HP : Company Merger – Transfer Of Property

Mangat Ram Alias Mahant Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh
2023 Stpl(Web) 42 HP : Bail – Ndps 

Nadeem Akhta Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh
2023 Stpl(Web) 48 HP : Bail – Hurting Religious Feelings

Om Prakash And Another Vs. Bishan Dass
2023 Stpl(Web) 52 HP : Adverse Possession – Not Made Out

People For Responsible Governance Vs. State Of H.P. & Others
2023 STPL(Web) 47 HP : Service Law – Video recordings of all the selection processes

Puri Brothers Damtal Vs. Sukhdev Singh And Others
2023 Stpl(Web) 41 HP : Civil Procedure – Plaint Rejected On Ground Of Limitation

Ramanand And Ors. Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors.
2023 Stpl(Web) 33 HP : Land Acquisition – Land Utilized Without Acquisition

Rakesh Chauhan Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh
2023 Stpl(Web) 43 HP : Land Acquisition – Claim Withdrawn By Power Of Attorney Holder After Death Of Claimant 

Regional Manager, Hrtc Vs. Nisha Kumari And Others
2023 Stpl(Web) 57 HP : Mact – Compensation Enhanced

Sandeep Kaur Vs. State Of H.P. & Others
2023 Stpl(Web) 50 HP : Service Law – Bonafide Certificate Not Required For Compassionate Appointment

Sant Ram Chauhan Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors.
2023 Stpl(Web) 34 HP : Land Acquisition – Land Was Utilized Without Acquisition

Santosh Sharma & Others Vs. Hrtc & Anr
2023 Stpl(Web) 49 HP : Mact – Compensation Enhanced

Shiva Institute Of Pharmacy Vs. The State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another
2023 Stpl(Web) 51 HP : Education – Grant Of Noc To Start Course

Vijay Kumar Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh
2023 Stpl(Web) 53 HP : Bail – Rape

Subject Index

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 – Arbitration – When liability is admitted – Then no arbitration (Para 6, 7) : Ajay Kumar Sood Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others : 2023 Stpl(Web) 39 HP

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 29A – Arbitration – Deemed Consent for extending arbitration period – Arbitration award regarding Land Acquisition by National Highway Authority set aside by District Judge on ground of award beyond period fix by Section 29A of Act – Appeal against – Held: Consent of the parties envisaged under Section 29A(3) of the 2015 Arbitration & Conciliation Act for extending the arbitral period need not necessarily be either express or in writing. There can be a deemed consent, an implied consent of the parties, which can be gathered from their acts and conduct. Their acquiescence in proceeding with the arbitration case beyond twelve months without raising any objection to the continuation of proceeding does amount to consent. On the basis of such consent, the arbitral award if passed within a further period of six months would be a valid award. In the given facts, consent of the parties to continue the arbitral proceedings beyond the period of one year (12 months) from the date the Arbitrator entered upon the reference, is writ large. The award was passed by the Arbitrator within further period of two months. The award was thus saved by Section 29A(3) of the Act as it was passed within the period permitted under Section 29A (3) of the Act. The conclusion drawn by learned District Judge about the award being illegal having been passed beyond the mandated period, therefore, being illegal, cannot be justified. Under Section 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, there is no requirement that consent of the parties has to be expressed and that too, in writing. Setting aside of award set aside. (Para 4) : Balak Ram And Others Vs. Nhai : 2023 Stpl(Web) 55 HP

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 37 – Limitation – Arbitration appeal – Whether Section 5 of Limitation Act applicable on such appeal – Held: Yes (Para 3) : Balak Ram And Others Vs. Nhai : 2023 Stpl(Web) 55 HP

Civil

Government Contract – Non Payment of admitted bills – Held: Since it is not in dispute that approximately Rs.1.00 Crore is payable to the petitioner, prayer made on behalf the petitioner made in the instant petition deserve to be allowed. Non-availability of funds cannot be a ground for not releasing the due and admissible claim of the petitioner. Consequently in view of above, present petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to release undisputed amount of Rs.1,17,08,009/-, enabling the petitioner to execute the remaining work at the site. (Para 13, 14) : Ajay Kumar Sood Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others : 2023 Stpl(Web) 39 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII, Rule 11 – Civil Procedure – Grounds for rejection of plaint – Court details following grounds:

The plaint can be rejected if it does not discloses cause of action and relief claimed is undervalued. If plaintiff despite being called upon by the Court, fails to correct valuation, court can reject the plaint. Most importantly, where suit appears from statement of plaint to be barred by any law, court while exercising power under Order VII, rule 11 CPC can reject the plaint.

It is further apparent from the afore provision of law, that when no plausible explanation is rendered on record qua delay in filing the suit, court below can reject the plaint being barred by limitation. It has been specifically provided under Order VII, rule 11 that where suit appears from statement of plaint to be barred by any law, court can reject the plaint.

Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed alongwith the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.

In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. (Para 10, 1, 14) : Puri Brothers Damtal Vs. Sukhdev Singh And Others : 2023 Stpl(Web) 41 HP

Adverse Possession – Not made out – Second appeal by defendant – First appeal court decree suit in favour of plaintiff and a decree of possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in respect of the suit land. Held: I have not been able to find the specific pleading and proof as regards the assertion of title over the suit land and the proximal period therefor that too in clear hostility over the title of true owner.  The material on record does not suggest that the defendants had ever expressed their specific hostile animus to hold the possession of suit land as owners by denying the title of plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest. That being so the defendants cannot be held to have perfected the title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. Defendants have failed to discharge the necessary burden of proof. First appeal court decree affirmed – Appeal by defendant dismissed. (Para 6, 15) : Om Prakash And Another Vs. Bishan Dass : 2023 Stpl(Web) 52 HP

Companies Act, 2013 – Section 230, 231, 232 – Company Merger – Transfer of Property – Merger according to Companies Act and Sanctioned by National Company Law Tribunal – Demand of unearned increase etc by respondent – Held: Vestment of Spandex Business Dkvision/Unit from IIL to IIPL is by operation of law and such vestment governing the transfer of leasehold rights of IIL to IIPL shall also be without any deed or conveyance and, therefore, no stamp duty or other charges are leviable on instrument, deed or conveyance for such transfer shall be leviable on transfer of leasehold rights from IIL to IIPL, but such transfer of leasehold rights shall be governed by terms and conditions of lease deed dated 11.1.2012 and 27.2.2012 executed in favour of IIL and, therefore, for transfer of leasehold rights of Plot, in reference, IIL has to comply with relevant provisions of terms and conditions of lease deed(s). It is made clear that stamp duty for transfer of Spandex Business Division/Unit is not applicable in present case, including for transfer of leasehold rights of Land/Plot concerned, but transfer of leasehold right that shall be governed by terms and conditions of lease deed.

Direction to petitioners to approach the respondents with an appropriate application for transfer of leasehold rights and in such eventuality, the respondents shall consider and take the decision thereon in the light of observations made hereinabove, within one month thereafter.  (Para 17, 18, 23, 35, 36) : Indorama India Pvt. Ltd & Another Vs. State Of Hp & Others : 2023 Stpl(Web) 54 HP

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 6 Rule 17 – Civil Procedure – Amendment of Plaint –  Change in nature of suit – Rejection of application for amendment of plaint by Trial Court – Approach to High Court – Held: The plea of adverse possession taken by the petitioner/plaintiff in his original plaint was struck off by the learned Trial Court on 23.02.2019 at the instance of the petitioner/plaintiff by allowing his application moved under order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Three years later plaintiff, yet again moved another amendment application now seeking to incorporate the same plea of adverse possession, which he had cautiously discarded earlier.

Litigants cannot be allowed to play with sanctity of judicial procedures at their whims & fancies. Petitioner/plaintiff cannot be permitted to undo in his second amendment application what he had specifically requested for and was allowed by the learned Trial Court in his first amendment application that too at the stage of leading defendants’ evidence. Also the factual plea of adverse possession now being sought to be incorporated would change the nature of suit. This plea cannot be permitted in the given facts. It would cause prejudice to the respondents/defendants. (Para 6,7,8) : Devmani Vs. State & Ors. : 2023 Stpl(Web) 56 HP

Constitutional Law

Writ – Maintainability of – Government contract – Pending Payment – Liability admitted – Writ petition held to be maintainable. (Para 6, 7) : Ajay Kumar Sood Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others : 2023 Stpl(Web) 39 HP

Compensation

Motor Vehicles Act,  1988 – Section 173 – MACT – Compensation enhanced – As dependent are 4 so deduction from monthly account made ¼ instead of 1/3 – Future prospects added as 30% – Consortium @ Rs 40000/- to each dependent – The claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under the  head ‘Funeral Expenses’ and Rs. 15,000/-, under the  head ‘ Loss of Estate’.  Rs 75,000/- awarded for treatment – Compensation enhanced from Rs 37,25,016/- to Rs.  54,83,573/- along with interest @ 9% per annum – Award apportioned 30% each to wife and two children and 10% to mother. (Para 46 to 56) : Santosh Sharma & Others Vs. Hrtc & Anr : 2023 Stpl(Web) 49 HP

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – MACT – Compensation Enhanced – Deduction and Future Prospects – Deduction taken as ¼ – Future Prospects added @ 50% – Compensation enhanced from Rs 11.33,600/- to Rs.20,69,279/- Some other minor modifications also made. (Para 48, 49, 52) : Regional Manager, Hrtc Vs. Nisha Kumari And Others : 2023 Stpl(Web) 57 HP

MACT – Award cannot be restricted –  If the evidence on record justifies passing of such award, the prayer so made by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioners have restricted their claim to Rs.20,00,000/- or they have not filed any appeal, cross appeal or cross objections. There will be no impediment for this Court to enhance the amount of compensation, in case, where there is evidence on record, justifying the enhancement of compensation. Making the enhancement of compensation on the basis of evidence on record does not amount to introduction of a new or inconsistent cause of action, as the cause of action and evidence remain the same and the only question which is to be determined by this Court is to the effect that whether the learned MACT has awarded the ‘just compensation’ or not. (Para 42) : Regional Manager, Hrtc Vs. Nisha Kumari And Others : 2023 Stpl(Web) 57 HP

Criminal

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 – Section 439 – Bail – NDPS – The question that arises for consideration is, can the provision of Section 37 of the Act, be construed to have same efficacy throughout the pendency of trial, notwithstanding, the period of custody of the accused, especially, when it is weighed against his fundamental right to have expeditious disposal of trial. Trial has not concluded, rather, it is progressing at snail’s pace. Accused in custody for more than one year and six months – Facts suggest that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. There is nothing on record to suggest that delay in trial is attributable to the petitioner. Bail Granted with conditions (Para 7, 18) : Mangat Ram Alias Mahant Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh : 2023 Stpl(Web) 42 HP

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 295A, 153A and 505(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 – Section 438 – Bail – Hurting Religious feelings – Posted derogatory comments, on facebook, against Bhagwaan Bhole Shankar and Shivling – Held: As per the allegations in the F.I.R., the social media has been used by the applicant for hurting the religious feelings of the followers of a particular religion. The police has specifically expressed certain apprehensions, in case, the interim order is made absolute. At this stage, those apprehensions cannot be said to be unfounded. Allowing the bail application, in this case, will also give a wrong signal to the society and it will encourage other persons to make such type of comments, allegedly causing resentment in the minds of followers of the other religions, which is also not good for the secular fabric of the country. Bail application dismissed. (Para 9) : Nadeem Akhta Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh : 2023 Stpl(Web) 48 HP

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 354A(1)(i), 384, 376, and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 – Section 439 – Bail – Rape – Refusal of complainant to go for medical test – Denial of committing any offence by petitioner –  Report of Forensic Science Laboratory does not disclose that obscene pictures related to the case, which were found to be present in data extracted from the mobile phone of the petitioner, were clicked by the petitioner through his mobile phone – According to victim herself, they were in relations since last 3 years. Therefore, there is no question of extortion of money by exploiting the relations. Bail granted with conditions. (Para 11, 12, 17) : Vijay Kumar Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh : 2023 Stpl(Web) 53 HP

Dishonour of Cheque

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882 – Section 138, 139 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal set aside as Presumption not rebutted – Complaint of dishonour of cheque resulted in conviction by Trial Court, which is reversed by first appeal Court – Appeal to High Court – Issuance of cheque proved – Signature admitted – No specific denial during questioning u/s 313 Cr PC – Presumption u/s 139 N I Act in favour of complainant – No rebuttal of presumption – Acquittal set aside – Conviction by Trial Court upheld. (Para 8,11,14,18) : Dinesh Sharma Vs. Kamal Jit Kaur & Another : 2023 Stpl(Web) 58 HP

Education

Education – Grant of NOC to Start Course – Extraneous and Irrelevant consideration – Policy decisions – Interference by Court – Held: It is true that in Policy decisions, Courts have very limited scope for interference, but in present matter, decision taken by the Hon’ble Minister does not appear to be based on any Policy of the State. Had it been so, then definitely from the very initial stage of consideration of proposal such information would have been made part of the record to assess suitability of issuance of NOC – Decision of rejection is not based upon any survey, indicating that as on date there is no requirement of M. Pharmacy in Pharmacology in the country or a saturation point has arisen with respect to the number of persons available with degree of M. Pharmacy in Pharmacology.

I am of the considered opinion that reason assigned for rejecting the case for granting NOC is based on extraneous and irrelevant consideration and, thus, is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue NOC to the Petitioner (Para 20, 25) : Shiva Institute Of Pharmacy Vs. The State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another : 2023 Stpl(Web) 51 HP

Policy Decisions – Does not mean sweet will of or whims and fancy of the person holding the position – Policy decision by the Government is taken in collective manner. Personal opinion of the person based on sudden thought sparked at the spur of moment in the mind of such person holding position in Government, does not become the Policy of the State.

“Policy” does not mean sweet will of or whims and fancy of the person holding the position. Admittedly, there is no black and white Policy decision that in case of no admission in courses in Educational Institutions, those courses are to be closed, discontinued or not permitted to be started by fresh applicant institutions. Therefore, decision of rejection by the Hon’ble Minister is amenable to the jurisdiction of Judicial Review conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 21) : Shiva Institute Of Pharmacy Vs. The State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another : 2023 Stpl(Web) 51 HP 

Election

Election – Rejection of nomination – Election of Director of Cooperative federation – Rejected on the ground that his seconder/proposer himself is a candidate for the post of Director – No such rule which prohibits one candidate to be a proposer/seconder for another candidate – Court finds merit in the present petition and the same is allowed. Order is quashed and set aside. Returning Officer is directed to accept the nomination of the petitioner, for the post of Director, in the Federation, if otherwise in order. (Para 2,6,11) : Gaurav Sharma Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others : 2023 Stpl(Web) 38 HP

Evidence

Indian Evidence Act, Section 45 – Evidence – Verification/Comparison with admitted signature – Rejection of application by trial court – Industrial dispute in Labour Court – Signature related to workmen – Held: Though to ascertain the factual position, there is/was no harm for the court to send the signatures of the respondent-workman to hand writing expert, but since evidence of the petitioner is yet to be recorded, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the court below while rejecting the application. Necessity, if any, of sending the signatures to hand writing expert, as prayed for, by the petitioner-employer, would be seen by the court after recording of the evidence. Liberty granted to petitioner to make fresh prayer for getting the signature of the respondent-workman compared, if required after completion of the evidence of both the parties. (Para 5, 6) : Headmaster, The Lawrence School Vs. Pawan Kumar : 2023 Stpl(Web) 35 HP

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition – Land utilized without acquisition – No compensation to owners – Held: Record clearly reveals that award for grant of compensation was passed for the second time in 2014 without considering the land of the petitioners and no plausible reason, whatsoever, ever came to be put forth by the respondents for such omission. Record reveals that petitioners repeatedly approached the authorities and thereafter, this Court directed the respondents to redress the grievances of the petitioners, but yet despite there being positive recommendation from the appropriate authority, respondents failed to consider the claim of the petitioners. Direction to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-à-vis land of the petitioners and thereafter, just and fair compensation qua the land of the petitioners used by the respondents for construction of the road may also be paid. (Para 10, 13) : Ramanand And Ors. Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. : 2023 Stpl(Web) 33 HP

Land Acquisition – Land was utilized without acquisition – No compensation paid – Held: Since in the instant case, there is no dispute that land of the petitioner stands utilized for construction of the road in question and some of the persons, whose land were also used alongwith land of the petitioners, stand granted compensation as has been detailed herein above, prayer made by the petitioner through instant petition deserves to be allowed. Direction to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-à-vis land of the petitioner and thereafter, just and fair compensation qua the land of the petitioner used by the respondents for construction of the road may also be paid. (Para 12, 13) : Sant Ram Chauhan Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. : 2023 Stpl(Web) 34 HP

Land Acquisition – Claim withdrawn by Power of Attorney holder after death of claimant – Power of Attorney Holder not competent to withdraw claim in such situation – order allowing withdrawal of claim set aside – Reference court below is directed to decide the reference on its own merit.  (Para 7, 15, 18) : Rakesh Chauhan Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh : 2023 Stpl(Web) 43 HP

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 58 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII, Rule 11 – Civil Procedure – Plaint rejected on ground of Limitation – Application for rejection of plaint, rejected by trial court – Approach to High Court – Cause of action arises in year 1982 and 1989 and suit filed in 2019 – Art.58 of the Limitation Act prescribed limitation of three years to file suit relating to declaration and such time starts from the date, such right to sue first accrued. Suit came to be filed in the year 2019 i.e. after around 37 years from the date of accrual of first cause of action Held: Since, in the case at hand, suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record on behalf of the plaintiff qua delay in filing the suit for declaration, impugned order passed by learned court below cannot be said to be passed in accordance with law and as such, same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Plaint rejected. (Para 12, 13, 16, 17) : Puri Brothers Damtal Vs. Sukhdev Singh And Others : 2023 Stpl(Web) 41 HP

Practice and Procedure

Review – No error apparent on record – Matter already decided – Held: The plea so raised on behalf of the petitioners has been found to be factually incorrect. All the contentions as pointed out in the instant petition have already been considered and adjudicated upon by this Court – Held: The persuasion by petitioners for reassessment on such contentions by the same court in review jurisdiction cannot be countenanced being impermissible in law.  (Para 6) : Churagu Devi (Deceased) Through Her Lrs And Ors.  Vs. Ram Lal : 2023 Stpl(Web) 37 HP 

Service Law

Service Law – Adverse Entries in ACR – Decline of benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme – Uncommunicated adverse entries – Respondent has recorded ACRs of the petitioner for the period for which he had never seen petitioner’s working – There are no endorsements in the ACRs of the petitioner for the years 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 of the reviewing and accepting authorities. – Held: The decision of the respondents in not extending the benefit of ACP Scheme to the petitioner, merely on account of uncommunicated adverse entries in her ACRs for the years 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 and written in flagrant violation of the instructions in place, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme without taking into consideration the ACRs for these years.  (Para 4, 5) : Harmohini Vs. State Of H.P. And Others : 2023 Stpl(Web) 36 HP

Service Law – Video recordings of all the selection processes – Plea that rule of fairness, demands that all appointments are conducted freely and fairly in a transparent manner without there being any malicious motives, as mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution. – Pleas by all respondents they are already working under law – Videography already going on during written exams – as regards videography of the interviews, the Commission communicated its opinion that the interaction/discussions between the panel of interview and the candidate is essentially confidential in nature; and the videography of the content of the interview and putting it in public domain would amount to compromising the sanctity of the interview process which would ultimately lead to avoidable multiplicity of litigation. It opined that videography during the actual conduct of interview is not desirable.

Held: In our opinion, one should not start with a premise that something untoward is being done / is going to be done in every selection process; and unnecessarily, one cannot create a bogey of mistrust in the public in that regard and make them lose confidence in the selection being made by the respondents. No relief can be granted (Para 10, 12, 35. 37) : People For Responsible Governance Vs. State Of H.P. & Others : 2023 STPL(Web) 47 HP

Service Law – Bonafide Certificate not required for compassionate appointment – Denial of compassionate appointment on ground of non-possession of Bonafide certificate as petitioner has no home in Himachal Pradesh and she leaves in Punjab – Held: Admittedly, the petitioner’s father was a regular employee of the 2nd respondent-Corporation and he served it in the State of Himachal Pradesh for twenty one and half years.  There is no dispute that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased. . We agree with both these contentions raised by the petitioner’s Counsel. As per Art.16(2) of the Constitution no citizen can be discriminated on basis of residence. So insisting that petitioner produces such a certificate when it is undisputed that she is an Indian citizen and daughter of the deceased employee of the 2nd respondent cannot be countenanced – order set aside – Direction to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner within four weeks. (Para 14, 15, 21, 22), Sandeep Kaur Vs. State Of H.P. & Others : 2023 Stpl(Web) 50 HP

———