Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.9693 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Veena Kumari
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.R. Dhiman, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by
judgment dated 8.03.2018 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 titled Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others and as such, she would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid
judgment in a time bound manner.
2.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
that he 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 petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Sunder Singh’s case (supra). 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 a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
p
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge June 16,2025 (shankar)