Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18826 (HP)

PREM SINGH AND OTHERS v. HRTC AND OTHERS

CWP/10677/2025 · 2025-07-07

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10677 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Prem Singh & others …….Petitioners Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 26.12.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled Smt. Sheela Devi versus State of H.P. 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 dated 01.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) having been filed by the petitioners, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Raman Jamalta, 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 petitioners. 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 pending representation dated 01.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Sheela Devi 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 petitioners 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 07, 2025 (shankar)