IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6345 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Bakeel Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Consequently, in view of 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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 petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. 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. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 21, 2025 (Sunil)