IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 1873 of 2010. Decided on: 26.10.2010. D.R. Setia. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 3. : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For respondent No. 4. : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): It is apparent from the pleadings of the parties that the statutory authority, i.e., respondent No. 3 is seized of the matter. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of instructions imparted to him by his client submits that the matter has now been fixed for 27th November, 2010. 2. Consequently, there shall be a direction to respondent No. 3 to complete the proceedings within a period of ten weeks from today. He shall pass a speaking and detailed order after hearing both the parties. Thereafter, it shall be open to the parties to assail the order passed by respondent No. 3, in accordance with 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. law before the appropriate Forum. However, before parting with the judgment, it is made clear by way abundant precaution that the Court has not gone into the validity/legality of sanction granted to respondent No. 4 in the year, 2004 as per Annexure P- 6. 3. With the aforesaid observations/directions made hereinabove, writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge October 26, 2010. (bhupender)