IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20831 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.01.2026 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Darshan Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notice, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 06.02.2025, passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and Others and judgment dated 22.02.2022, passed by Three-Judge Bench of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents-State is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgments sought to be relied upon, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Three-Judge Bench of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex 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 judgments supra. 3. 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 judgments 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 January 02, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)