Himachal Pradesh High Court
_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 8 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.4065 of 2025
Date of Decision: 08.05.2025
_______________________________________________________
Yashpal and Another .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, proxy counsel, for
Mr. M.A. Safee, 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 petitioners, on
instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in
case their pending representation (Annexure P-9) is considered and
decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated
07.04.2025 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP
No.4830 of 2023, titled as Inder Singh Thakur and Others Vs. State
of H.P. 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 petitioners 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-9) of the petitioners
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 petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking
note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Inder Singh Thakur case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to
be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in
appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
p`
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
May 08, 2025
(Rajeev Raturi)
