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.4093 of 2025
Date of Decision: 08.05.2025
__________________________________________________________
Maan Singh and Another .......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.
Adarsh K. Vashista, 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 petitioner, on
instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case
their pending representation (Annexure P-6) 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
representation (Annexure P-6) 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)
