IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 4422 of 2011. Decided on: 16.08.2011. ___________________________________________ Kewal Krishan. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1, 2, 4, 5 & 6. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.7. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure P-3, dated 3rd March, 2010. Admittedly, this order is 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - appealable before the H.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short referred to as “the Appellate Tribunal”). 2. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, within a period of two weeks from today. Thereafter the Appellate Tribunal shall decide the same by passing a self-contained and speaking order, within a period of eight weeks. Till then the present arrangement shall continue. It is made clear that the learned Appellate Tribunal shall decide the appeal wholly uninfluenced by the delay, laches and limitation. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Copy dasti on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. August 16, 2011. (sck).