Sh. Mohan Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3379 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sh. Mohan Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 5 August, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                                    CWP No.12069 of 2025
                                    Date of Decision: 05.08.2025




                                                                                   .
    _______________________________________________________





    Sh. Mohan Singh                              .......Petitioner
                             Versus
    State of H.P. and Others                 ....Respondents





    _______________________________________________________
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1





    For the Petitioner:                Mr. C.N. Singh and Mr. Anshul Gandhi,
                                       Advocates.
    For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr.
                         Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.

                         B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General,

                         with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
                         General, for State.
    _______________________________________ _____________
    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notices, if any, could be issued to the

respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on

instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in

case his pending representation (Annexure P-7) is considered and

decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by

this Court in CWP No.5783 of 2024, titled as Sh. Bhola Singh Vs.

State of H.P. and Others, decided on 13.03.2025 and judgment

rendered by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.19 of 2023, titled

as State of H.P. and Others Vs. Nek Ram and Others, decided on

10.03.2023, in a time bound manner.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General,

fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made

.

on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the

petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the

aforesaid judgments.

3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without

going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present

petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the

pending representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner expeditiously,

preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly.

Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in

terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of

the judgments, detailed hereinabove, wherein issue otherwise sought

to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated.

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in

appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

p`

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 05, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)