IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC(T) No. 106 of 2008 Decided on: 08.11.2010 Dada Singh …Petitioner Versus M.P. Sood …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. Banbhushan Singh, Advocate vice counsel. For the respondent : Mr. Parveen Chandel, Advocate vice counsel. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : The petitioner has approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance by way of OA No. 382 of 2007. The same has been decided by learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 20.09.2007 by treating the original application as representation to the Secretary, H.P. State Electricity Board, Shimla to be decided within three months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the representation has been decided vide Annexure R-7, dated 11.09.2009, though belatedly. 2. Since the order dated 11.9.2009 has been complied with, no further order is required to be passed except that the needful, as 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- undertaken, shall be done after the outcome of the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as mentioned in the reply. Consequently, the present petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 8, 2010 (K. Attri)