Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12715 (HP)

MEGH SINGH v. THE HRTC AND ANOTHER

CWP/8043/2025 · 2025-05-29

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8043 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Megh Singh …….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. S.P.Chatterji, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 03.04.2025 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.445 of 2024, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others vs. Ajmer Chand alongwith connected matters, and as such, he 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 aforesaid judgment, 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 case of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of judgment dated 3.4.2025 passed by Division Bench of this Court. 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 May 29,2025 (shankar)