Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21056 (HP)

REENA THAKUR AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/12003/2025 · 2025-07-25

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12003 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Reena Thakur & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. M.A.Safee, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Mohit Sharma (supra) and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, 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 representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-4) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. July 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2