Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23206 (HP)

SURENDER KUMAR AND ANR v. STATE OF HP AND ANR

CWP/13406/2025 · 2025-08-21

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13390 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.13406 of 2025 Decided on: 21st August, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.13390 of 2025 Jeva Nand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.13406 of 2025 Surender Kumar and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed representations dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure P-4) to respondent No.2 for the redressal of the issues raised in these writ petitions, however, the representations preferred by them in light of settled legal position have not been adjudicated till date. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. 3 The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 21, 2025 Judge Mukesh