IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14505 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Lajya Kumari & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. 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 04.09.2021 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 Madan Lal Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and in CWP(T) No.5759 of 2008, titled Subhash Chand 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-4 colly) 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. B.C.Verma 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-4 colly) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Madan Lal Sharma and Subhash Chand cases (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 September 08,2025 (shankar)