IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9165 of 2008 Date of decision: 07.04.2011. _______________________________________________________ Paras Ram. & Anr. ….. Petitioners. Versus The State of H.P. & Anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Lokinder Thakur,Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the present petition is covered by judgment dated 17.3.2011 passed by a co-ordinate Bench in CWP (T) No.9119 of 2008, following judgment dated 30.11.2010 in CWP (T) No. 8451 of 2008. It has been submitted that the impugned Annexure A-8 in the present writ petition was Annexure A-13 in CWP (T) No.9119 of 2008 which has been quashed. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has not denied this fact, rather he has also stated that Annexure A-8 in the present petition and Annexure A-13 in CWP (T) No. 9119 of 2008 are same. In view of stand taken by the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-8 dated 16.04.2002 is quashed and set-aside. April 7, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), ( krt) Judge. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?