Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21699 (HP)

ANUPAMA MAKHAIK v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/12387/2025 · 2025-07-30

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:25221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 12387/2025 Decided on: 30.7.2025 Anupama Makhaik …..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. M. A. Safee, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B. C. Verma, Addl. A.Gs. with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Dy. A.G. . ____________________________________________________________ Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral) Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, 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, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 consider the representation of the petitioner 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 petitioner (Annexure P-5) 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 petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma) 30.7.2025 Judge (pankaj)