Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13467 (HP)

VIRENDER SHARMA AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/5389/2024 · 2025-08-14

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5389 of 2024 Date of Decision: 14.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Virender Sharma & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. M.A.Safee, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 28.05.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5390 of 2024 titled as Surya Prabha & Ors. Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., and as such, they 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 petitioners, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 petitioners. 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 representations (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Surya Prabha 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 they still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. August 14, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2