_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 193 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.7087 of 2025
                                         Date of Decision: 1.5.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Anju Bala
                                                            .........Petitioner
                                 Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
                                                        .......Respondents

Coram

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

For the Petitioner:       Mr. Tarun K. Sharma and Mr. Sanjeev
                          Thakur, Advocates.

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 appearing for the petitioner, on

instructions, states that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by

the judgment dated 19.12.2022, passed in CWP No. 5278 of 2012,

titled Gafoor Mohd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

(alongwith connected matters) and as such, she would be content and

satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider

and decide the representation dated 24.3.2025 (Annexure P-3) having

been filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner.

2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant

petition and order proposed to be passed, this court sees no necessity

to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented

by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, who while

accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that

pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, shall be decided

expeditiously in accordance with law.

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-3) of the petitioner expeditiously,

preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Gafoor Mohd. case

(supra). 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 a speaking order

thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate

proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

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