NANDIKA SHARMA AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/8805/2025 · 2025-06-04
Sandeep Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13284 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13284 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8805 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.06.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Nandika Sharma & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2171 of 2023 titled as Hem Raj Vs. State of H.P. and others. alongwith connected matters, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Hem Raj (supra) as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.
2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously.
3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioners have already filed representation for redressal of their grievances (Annexure P-3), 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 representation of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by this Court in Hem Raj (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 petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. June 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil)
Judge 2