Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2026 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Himachal Pradesh/
  4. 2024/
  5. November

Radha Devi vs. State of Hp

Decided on 30 November 2024• Citation: CWPOA/6604/2020• High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                          IN THE HIGH  COURT   OF HIMACHAL   PRADESH                
                                           AT SHIMLA                                
                                          CWPOA  No :6604 of 2020                   
                                          Decided on : 30th November, 2024          
                        __________________________________________________________  
                        Radha Devi                         ...Petitioner            
                                             Versus                                 
                        State of Himachal Pradesh & ors.   ….Respondents            
                        Coram                                                       
                        Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge                    
                        1 Whether approved for reporting?                           
                        For the petitioner  :  Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate           
                                               vice Mr.  M.C.   Bhardwaj,           
                                               Advocate, for the petitioner.        
                        For the respondents :  Mr.  Baldev   Singh  Negi,           
                                               Additional Advocate General,         
                                               for respondents No.1 &  2-           
                                               State.                               
                                               Mr.  Manohar  Lal Sharma,            
                                               Advocate,  for  respondent           
                                               No.3.                                
                        Ranjan Sharma, Judge                                        
                                 On   29.11.2024,  Learned   Counsel  for           
                        petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was          
                        willing to work in Kullu and in such eventuality, prayer    
                        was  made  to direct to explore the  possibility of         
                        considering her case for employment somewhere  in           
                        1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

                                               - 2 -                                
                        District Kullu.                                             
                        2.       Today, Mr.  Anil Chauhan,  Learned  Vice           
                        Counsel, appearing for the petitioner states that since     
                        the  petitioner has now   shifted from  Kullu  to           
                        Chandigarh, therefore, she is not willing to work at        
                        Kullu and is also not interested to continue further        
                        with present proceedings. Statement  is taken  on           
                        record.                                                     
                        3.       Learned Respondents’ Counsel also do not           
                        oppose the prayer, being innocuous.                         
                        4.       In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is        
                        dismissed, due to subsequent development. Ordered           
                        accordingly.                                                
                                 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,      
                        shall also stand disposed of.                               
                                                          (Ranjan Sharma)           
                                                              Judge                 
                        November 30, 2024                                           
                            (Shivender)