Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16503 (HP)

SUDERSHANA DEVI AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/9465/2025 · 2025-06-06

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:18130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9465 of 2025 Date of Decision: June 6, 2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Sudershana Devi and another ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Dixit Sahotra Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, & Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, could be called from the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 29.11.2024, states that the issue raised in the instant petition stands adjudicated in aforesaid case, as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioners in light of Mohit Sharma supra, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of petitioners. 2025:HHC:18130 3. Consequently, in view of above, without going into merits of case, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide representation of petitioners, (Annexure P-4), within four weeks from today. 4. Needless to say, authority concerned shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a speaking order, taking note of Mohit Sharma supra. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach competent court of law, in case, they still remain aggrieved. All pending applications stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge June 6, 2025 Vikrant) 2