IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9318 of 2025 Date of Decision: 4.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajinder Kumar and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Shailender Kashyap, Mr. Sumit Sharma and Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pushpender Singh Jaswal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Sumit Sharma & Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocates General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for the State. Mr. Vedhant Ranta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions submits that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case direction are issued to respondent No.2 to decide the detailed representation dated 23.4.2025 (Annexure P-10) in time bound manner, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 Mr. Vedhant Ranta, Advocate, fairly states that he has no objection to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioners. - 2 - 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending representation dated 23.4.2025 (Annexure P-10) having been filed by the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. 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. It is further ordered that till the time representation, as detailed herein above, is decided, respondent No.2 shall not issue/release the sale letters and title deeds of the properties/land as detailed in the agreement to sell dated 5.1.2022. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. June 4, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge