_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 672 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 8 May, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4081 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mahander Lal .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ....Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, proxy counsel, for Mr. Munish Dhatwalia, 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 representing the petitioner, on

instructions, states that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by

the judgment dated 07.07.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench of this

Court in CWP No.2500 of 2021, titled as Ranjit Singh and Others

Vs. State of H.P. and Others, and as such, petitioner would be

content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents

to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid

judgment, in a time bound manner.

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

while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states

that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of

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

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 he

case of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six

weeks in light of Ranjit Singh (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 stills remain

aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

p`

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