IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7123 of 2025 Date of Decision:01.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kanhakru Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, 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): 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 pending representation of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 2. While putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation 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 order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 01, 2025 (shankar)