IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9339 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ajmer Singh Katoch …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, for the respondents- State. Mr. Surinder Kumar Saklani, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petition with a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 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 appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 18, 2025 (Sunil)