IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10097 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vijay Kumar & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Anshul Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and as such, they would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-5) having been filed by the petitioners, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 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 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Mohit Sharma 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 petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 24, 2025 (shankar)