IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13153 of 2025 Date of Decision:18.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sheela Devi …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Rathore, Advocate. Mr ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide her representation dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-2), in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Piyush Rathore, Advocate, fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 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. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 2. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 18,2025 (shankar)