Sh. Hari Krishan vs State of H.P., Principal Chief Conservator of forest, H.P., Shimla, H.P. and Divisional Forest Officer, Shimla forest Division, Shimla, H.P.

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them to do so. Thereafter, the matter will be duly considered by the second respondent in the light of the judgment, referred to above and appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken within another four months from the date of receipt of the representation(s) along with a copy of this judgment and the copy of the judgment, referred to above by the petitioner concerned.

The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.