IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7655 of 2021 Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ Hima Devi and Others …….Petitioners Versus Municipal Council, Sunder Nagar ….Respondent __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, proxy counsel, for Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): CMP No.9792 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and with the consent of parties, case at hand is taken up for hearing today itself. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.7655 of 2021 2. Before reply, if any, could be received on behalf of the respondent, learned proxy counsel representing the petitioners while referring to the judgment dated 08.03.2018, passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, states that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the afore case. He states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 case directions are issued to the respondent to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, 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 in light of Sunder Singh case (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 detailed speaking order taking note of judgment, as detailed hereinabove. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 08, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)