_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 185 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 1 May, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                               CWP No.3988 of 2025
                                         Date of Decision: 1.5.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Suresh Kumar and Anr.
                                                         .........Petitioners
                                 Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
                                                         .......Respondents

Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners:      Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate.
For the respondents:      Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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 representing the petitioners, on

instructions, states that the petitioners would be content and satisfied

in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide

their representation (Annexure P-10) in light of judgment dated

7.11.2024 passed in CWP No. 8839 of 2023, titled Pushap Kumar

and Ors v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and judgment dated

29.11.2024, passed in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma

and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., passed by

coordinate Benches of this Court, in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional 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 petitioners.

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/competent authority to

consider and decide representation (Annexure P-10) of the petitioners

in light of Pushap Kumar and Mohit Sharma (supra) 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 petitioners

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

petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law,

if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand

disposed of.

May 1, 2025                                   (Sandeep Sharma),
     (manjit)                                        Judge