_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4154 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 24 February, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                               CWP No.1113 of 2025
                                        Date of Decision: 24.2.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Roshna Devi
                                                         .........Petitioner
                                 Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
                                                        .......Respondents

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner:       Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate.
For the respondents:      Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
                          B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and
                          Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states

that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case representation

dated 29.12.2024 (Annexure P-3), filed by the petitioner is ordered to

be considered and decided by the respondents in light of CWP No.

2274 of 2021 titled Satya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.,

in a time bound manner.

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

Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that he is

not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner.

3. Consequently, in view of the afore statement made by the

learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court without going into the

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

direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending

representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed in Satya

Devi (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Ordered

accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the

needful, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and

pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner

to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law, if she

still remains aggrieved. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is

disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.

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