_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 497 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 6 May, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                                  CWP No.3817 of 2025
                                Date of Decision: 06.05.2025
_______________________________________________________
Meenakshi Sharma                             .......Petitioner
                         Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others       ....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
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 Advocate Generals
                     and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
                     General.
_______________________________________ _____________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notices, if any, could be issued to the

respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on

instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in

case her pending representation (Annexure P-3) is considered and

decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by

Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 titled as Taj

Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 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

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

necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are

otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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. 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 taking note of

the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Taj

Mohammad case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be

decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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.

p`

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 06, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)