IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7999 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Prem Lal & Ors. ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: 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, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case their pending representations (Annexure P-2 Colly) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated 07.04.2025 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4830 of 2023, titled as Inder Singh Thakur and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner. 2 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 Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representations, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 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-2 Colly) of the petitioners 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 hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Inder Singh Thakur case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate 3 proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 16, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge