IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12747 of 2024 Date of Decision: 24.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dharam Pal …….Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. S.P.Chatterji, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K.Vashisht, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before the claim of the petitioner as has been put forth in the petition could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Dheeraj K.Vashisht, Advocate, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly 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 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 (Annexure P-3) 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 24, 2025 (Sunil)