_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6214 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 29 May, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.8075 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Kumar .......Petitioner

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

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Munish Datwalia, 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 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 the representation (Annexure P-

3) having been filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General,

while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states

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

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-3) of the petitioner expeditiously,

preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Taj Mohammad 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 he still remains aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

p

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 29, 2025 (shankar)