2025:HHC:22056 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10894 of 2025 Decided on: 09.07.2025 Kuldeep Chand … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 2,3 and 5-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) To direct the respondent No.3 to decide the case of the petitioner within the time bound period. ii) to initiate the appropriate enquiry against the respondent No.3 for not deciding the case within the time fixed by the respondent No.5.” 2. When this case was listed on 08.07.2025, the following order was passed:- “Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 3 & 5. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of said respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that a complaint, that has been filed by him before respondent No.3, despite a specific order passed by respondent No.5 on 04.01.2025 vide Annexure P-4, to decide the same within two months, is being lingered on by the said respondent and the case has now been ordered to be listed on 17.07.2025 for 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:22056 framing of issues. Having perused the list of events appended with the petition, this Court prima facie is of the view that the act of respondent No.3, has smacks of legal mala-fide. To enable the said respondent to explain his conduct, he is ordered to be remain present in the Court on 09.07.2025, along-with the record of the case. It is clarified that no T.A/D.A shall be given to the officer concerned and he will have to avail the leave of kind due to him, for his personal presence in the Court.” 3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned is present in the Court in person and though, he has tried to give reasons as to why the case could not be decided within the time framed that was mentioned in the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, however, this Court is not happy with the manner in which the matter has been dealt with by the Officer concerned. 4. Be that as it may, as the Officer present in the Court has assured the Court that the matter shall be decided by him at the earliest and as further, he informed the Court that now the case is listed for recording the statements of witnesses of the petitioner herein, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let all the witnesses of the petitioner be examined on the next date of hearing, i.e. 17.07.2025. The petitioner will present all his witnesses before the Officer concerned on his own. No further opportunity will be granted to the petitioner to lead evidence. Thereafter, a date will be fixed by the Officer concerned for recording the statement of the witnesses of the other side. For this also, a date will be fixed before 3 2025:HHC:22056 the end of the month of July, 2025. Not more than two opportunities shall be granted to the private respondent to lead evidence. This opportunity maximum will not stretch beyond 15.08.2025 and the Officer shall decide the case on or before 31.08.2025. Order dated 08.07.2025 is modified by ordering that the Officer concerned can claim his T.A./D.A. and his appearance in the Court shall be treated as official. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 09, 2025 (Rishi)