Hans Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9427 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Hans Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 26 September, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.15579 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.09.2025

.

_______________________________________________________

Hans Raj .......Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. M.A.Safee, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.

B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with 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 29.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and another vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh and others and as such, he would be

content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents

to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) having

been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. B.C.Verma learned Additional Advocate General,

while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states

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

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

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 the

pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously,

preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Mohit Sharma case

(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 still remains aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 26,2025

(shankar)