IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7723 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ Jagdish Ram …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Limited and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate . __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, 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 the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 12.01.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Others vs. Surajmani and Others, in a time bound manner. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. Ms. Dhiman fairly states that she is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 09, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)