Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ranjodh Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 1 September, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.7453 of 2023
Date of Decision: 01.09.2025
.
_______________________________________________________
Ranjodh Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General,
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General, for State.
_______________________________________ _____________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Before reply, if any, could be received from the
respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions,
states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are
issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner
in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP
No.6443 of 2021, titled as Babu Ram Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh and Others, along with connected matters, in a time bound
manner.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the
respondents/State fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid
innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as
well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon,
.
this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands
adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court and as such, no
prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are
directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Babu
Ram (supra).
4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide
the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously,
preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority
concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford
an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate
orders thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate
proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
September 01, 2025
(Rajeev Raturi)
