Date Of Decision: 27.02.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4231 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision: 27.02.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 27 February, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

2025:HHC:3717

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.381 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.02.2025 _______________________________________________________ Raj Kumar .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ... Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev K.Motta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on

instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied

in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and

decide the pending representation dated 18.08.2024 (Annexure P-4)

of the petitioner, in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General,

while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states

that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of

the petitioner.

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

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 dated 18.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) of the

petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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. 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 February 27, 2025 (Sunil)