_______________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 659 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.4027 of 2025
                                Date of Decision: 08.05.2025
_______________________________________________________
Jai Dev                                      .......Petitioner
                         Versus
State of H.P. and Others                    ....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner:                Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, proxy counsel, for
                                   Mr. Anirudh Sharma, 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 his pending representation (Annexure P-4) is considered and

decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by

this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019, titled as Madan Lal Sharma Vs.

State of H.P. and Another, decided on 04.09.2021, 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-4) 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 this Court in Madan Lal Sharma 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

he still remains aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

p`

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