IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 5510 of 2010. Decided on: 29.11.2010. __________________________________________________________ Hardyal Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Om Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): A Division Bench of this Court has passed the following judgment on 29th April, 2010 in CWP No.13826 of 2008, titled Hardyal Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another :- “There will be direction to the second respondent to look into the representation submitted by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law, adverting to the contention submitted by the petitioner in the representation, within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.” 2. Thereafter the order was passed by the Director of Higher Education on 1st July, 2010. Mr. Om Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that though his client was present in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - the office of second respondent, however, he was not given effective hearing. His contention, in other words, is that the contentions raised by his client in the representation have not been taken into consideration at the time of passing the order. Consequently, Annexure PD, dated 1st July, 2010 is quashed and set aside. There shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh after hearing him and taking into consideration the contentions raised in the petition and the submissions made before him by the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment. He shall pass a speaking/detailed order. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. November 29, 2010. (sck).