IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7641 of 2021 Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Smt. Mira Gautam and Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Anr. ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Himalvi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Though by way of reply to the petition, claim, as put forth by the petitioners, has been refuted by the respondents, but before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide their case in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 01.11.2023, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)