Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16420 (HP)

CHHAVINDER KUMAR SHANDIL v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/9231/2025 · 2025-06-03

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9231 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.06.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Chhavinder Kumar Shandil ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore, 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 reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4973 of 2021 titled Narender Naik and Ors. Vs. State of H.P. and Ors, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Narender Naik (supra) and 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, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-6) in light of Narender Naik (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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 petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. June 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2