_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 203 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 1 May, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.7101 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Chanchal Dhiman .......Petitioner

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ... Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

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

____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on

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

the judgment dated 04.09.2021 passed by this Court in CWP No.3341

of 2019, titled Madan Lal Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

and another and as such, she would be content and satisfied in case

directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the

representation (Annexure P-5) having been filed by the petitioner, in a

time bound manner.

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

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 petitioner.

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-5) of the petitioner expeditiously,

preferably within a period of eight weeks in light of Madan Lal

Sharma 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.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 01,2025 (shankar)