__________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 657 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

__________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. And Others on 8 May, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                               CWP No.4055 of 2025
                                        Date of Decision: 08.05.2025
__________________________________________________________
Raj Kumar and Others                                .......Petitioners
                                Versus
State of H.P. and 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.
                         Parveen Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr.
                     Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal
                     Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with
                     Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General,
                     for State.
____________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents in

the instant proceedings, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on

instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case

their pending representations (Annexure P-9) is considered and decided

by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division

Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar

Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 01.11.2023, along with

connected matters, 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 necessity

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

represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,

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

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

representations (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 Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar 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.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 08, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)