Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17877 (HP)

TULSI RAM v. HRTC AND OTHERS

CWP/10067/2025 · 2025-06-24

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10067 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Tulsi Ram …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 20.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 13232 of 2024 titled Surinder Gopal and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states 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 pending representation dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks in light of Surinder Gopal 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 he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 24,2025 (shankar)