IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9473 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Prakash Chand and Others …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. K.B. Khajuria and Mr. Pevinder Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel and Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocates. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) That the impugned recovery notices dated 15.2.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3, may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the respondent Bank may kindly be directed to refund the recovered amount to the petitioners alongwith upto date interest.” 2. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioners states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case their case is considered and decided in light of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.660 of 2018, titled as Gopal Singh Kanwar and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, along with connected matters, decided on 28.03.2024, wherein issue otherwise 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 sought to be decided in the instant proceedings, already stands adjudicated. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocate, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and representation, if any, filed by the petitioners, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel representing the petitioners that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Gopal Singh Kanwar (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment. 5. 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 the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioners, 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 being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereupon taking note of judgment passed by this Court in Gopal Singh Kanwar (supra) and in the event of petitioners being found 3 similar situate, then they shall also be granted similar benefit, as has been granted in Gopal Singh Kanwar (supra). Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 06, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)