_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 679 HP

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.4069 of 2025
                                Date of Decision: 08.05.2025
_______________________________________________________
Suman Kumari 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-10) 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-10) 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)