_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 367 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 2 May, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                               CWP No.3791 of 2025
                                         Date of Decision: 2.5.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Bidhi Chand
                                                            .........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. Pankaj Thakur, 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 appearing for the petitioner, on

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

the judgment dated 3.8.2023, passed in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled

Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, he would

be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the

respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-4)

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 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

representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner in light of Taj

Mohammad (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six

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 a 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.

May 2, 2025                                    (Sandeep Sharma),
     (manjit)                                        Judge