Date Of Decision: 24.02.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4128 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision: 24.02.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 24 February, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

                                                                2025:HHC:3283




IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                               CWP No.8271 of 2024
                                       Date of Decision: 24.02.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Vinod Lal Dengta & Anr.                                  .........Petitioners
                                       Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.                         .......Respondents

Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner:       Mr. Surinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent:      Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal
                         Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with
                         Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on

instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in

case they are permitted to file representation for redressal of their

grievance with further direction to the respondents to consider and

decide the same in light of judgments passed by this Court in CWPOA

No. 195 of 2019 titled as Sheela Devi Vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh & Ors. and CWP No. 2411 of 2019 titled as Jagdish

Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., which have been

further upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 10399 of 2020

along with connected petitions and CWP No.2004 of 2017, titled Taj

Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State of HP & Ors. alongwith connected

matters.

2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr.

Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is

not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the

petitioners and fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the

petitioners shall be considered and decided in accordance with the

aforesaid judgments.

3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted

by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into

the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition

reserving liberty to the petitioners to file representation before the

competent authority within a period of two weeks for redressal of their

grievance as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn,

shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a

period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgments. Ordered

accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the

needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being

heard to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter.

February 24, 2025                               (Sandeep Sharma),
     (sunil)                                         Judge