IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7047 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shakuntala Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and 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 04.09.2021 passed by this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019, titled Madan Lal Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and as such, she would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-5) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, 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 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-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks in light of Madan Lal 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 she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 30,2025 (shankar)